Believe all sorts of absurd things about it. This is one of the worst. So the media should be stepping up and properly informing the population about the state of and limitations of AI, but they are doing an extremely poor job of it. Perhaps a better thought is that the media should be replaced by AI.
A case of technological prowess in the hands of the ill informed. Specifically:
"... the scientists said the structure was still too small and primitive to have anything approaching thoughts, feelings or consciousness."
But they do not know that for a fact. This isn't about foetal rights, this is about accuracy and honesty in research. The scientists are being duplicitous in order to be able to continue their research. And that is the unnerving part about all of this. Why not be honest and say "we do not know..."
We have enough natural and farmed salmon. Why not genetically modify a 'problem' fish like silver carp . It's a problem fish here in North America where it also has low culinary value (even though it has high culinary value in China). Why not change silver carp to address some of its shortcomings?
This is the internet at its worst. Extreme result study not replicated with a mild disclaimer embedded in it. But that is not the story that will get out. All that will be remembered and parroted over and over is the extreme claim that will be taken as fact: "Oh yeah, well a study proved that..." It's just disheartening but hopefully it won't be fatal.
The reasons and assurances by the companies seem hollow. A natural temptation for any organization would be monitoring of passengers for both marketing and security reasons. On the other hand surely there are more subtle ways to monitor passenger activity so maybe it is as they say.
That this question is asked lays bare the fundamental question of health care. The fact is, care costs money so how does it get paid for? Either healthcare is a business or it is supported by the people for the people (taxes thru government). This question, as revolting as it is, simply puts in stark relief the reality of the choices.
The data fed to the model is not just from police sent to neighbourhoods the model sends them to as suggested. The data is gathered from _all_ police dispatches. So the suggestion that the model is reinforcing its own biases is wrong.
Brilliant way of getting publicity and traffic for OpenAI. How many will flock to the site to see what it's all about? Wow. If you didn't believe Musk was brilliant before, you have to now.
Seriously. Python looks and feels kinda like octave fortran and is a natural first stop when a person can't afford matlab or other commercial tech options. Needless to say your're talking about number crunching. For web dev esp. now more than ever, why wouldn't you use the language of the web ie. Javascript/nodejs?
Time is the measure of change in our environment. Therefore its perception is entirely subject to our sensory input. The life cycle of our cells modulates our sensory input. Our cells experience their environment individually. Therefore our cells each perceive time uniquely. Our consciousness is an averaging of all our cells' experience. Socially, because we are all composed of similar components we have a similar experience of time.
Technically possible but... People will always want a person/organization to be held accountable when things go wrong. Any person who will be held accountable will want to ensure some control over that for which they are accountable. So there will always be a human in the loop as long as people expect there to be a human to blame when things go wrong.
Have actually been to the rainforest in question. Would really like to know how global warming is an issue...... especially for insects which generally are a pretty hardy bunch of creatures. _This_ type of report is why there remain people highly skeptical of scientific pronouncements.
Why persist in buying phones without the plug? As with the climate, either you're doing something about it or you are part of the problem. And whining isn't 'doing something'.
Thomas Gold and Russian researchers before him were looking at this back in the 1950's. He wrote a book The Deep Hot Biosphere. One might suppose that the strident opponents of the theory (and Gold) have died or retired so science can now progress in this area.
"... we are merely scratching the surface. If we sample more at the same site this number would easily double, triple, or even quadruple." Umm... you've never seen this before and you are making this prediction based on what exactly? One lump 16, two lumps 32, three lumps....
Climate change is real. Horrible horrible things will happen we are told for example Which gives rise to schemes like this. Most climate change deniers aren't denying climate change, they are reacting to the fear-mongering with extreme distrust. They know opportunists will use that fear fuel it with misinformation and use it for political manipulation to profit. And the collateral damage will be just as bad or worse than the climate change itself. That is the problem with the climate change 'debate'.
Climate change is real. Horrible horrible things will happen we are told here (and elsewhere). Which gives rise to schemes like this. Most climate change deniers aren't denying climate change, they are reacting to the fear-mongering with extreme distrust. They know opportunists will use that fear fuel it with misinformation and use it for political manipulation to profit. And the collateral damage will be just as bad or worse than the climate change itself. That is the problem with the climate change 'debate'.
The pace won't be the same because: a) easily/moderately accessible resources are pretty much being exploited therefore $$$ will temper further exploitation b) farms/cities can't be built just anywhere and already exist anywhere that is easily/moderately feasible. Bottom line: nothing increases linearly forever. A scientist should know that. There will be a plateau and we've likely reached it. Instead think: it is cheaper to increase efficiency of resource use and higher densities of habitation.
Epilogue: this sort of 'science' means well (maybe) but only makes people doubt scientists in the long run.
Which is fine if not for the fact that medicine draws absolute conclusions that affect you based on incomplete knowledge. But that's science right? And how much do we really know about the atmosphere and climate? And yet engineers and scientists are stepping up with "solutions".
It's not that science is incomplete, it's that people (profiteers and politicians) will try and make you believe it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe all sorts of absurd things about it. This is one of the worst. So the media should be stepping up and properly informing the population about the state of and limitations of AI, but they are doing an extremely poor job of it. Perhaps a better thought is that the media should be replaced by AI.
A case of technological prowess in the hands of the ill informed. Specifically:
"... the scientists said the structure was still too small and primitive to have anything approaching thoughts, feelings or consciousness."
But they do not know that for a fact. This isn't about foetal rights, this is about accuracy and honesty in research. The scientists are being duplicitous in order to be able to continue their research. And that is the unnerving part about all of this. Why not be honest and say "we do not know ..."
We have enough natural and farmed salmon. Why not genetically modify a 'problem' fish like silver carp . It's a problem fish here in North America where it also has low culinary value (even though it has high culinary value in China). Why not change silver carp to address some of its shortcomings?
This is the internet at its worst. Extreme result study not replicated with a mild disclaimer embedded in it. But that is not the story that will get out. All that will be remembered and parroted over and over is the extreme claim that will be taken as fact: "Oh yeah, well a study proved that ..." It's just disheartening but hopefully it won't be fatal.
However, it is inconceivable that they have 'never' been activated by someone.
The reasons and assurances by the companies seem hollow. A natural temptation for any organization would be monitoring of passengers for both marketing and security reasons. On the other hand surely there are more subtle ways to monitor passenger activity so maybe it is as they say.
That this question is asked lays bare the fundamental question of health care. The fact is, care costs money so how does it get paid for? Either healthcare is a business or it is supported by the people for the people (taxes thru government).
This question, as revolting as it is, simply puts in stark relief the reality of the choices.
The data fed to the model is not just from police sent to neighbourhoods the model sends them to as suggested. The data is gathered from _all_ police dispatches. So the suggestion that the model is reinforcing its own biases is wrong.
Brilliant way of getting publicity and traffic for OpenAI.
How many will flock to the site to see what it's all about?
Wow.
If you didn't believe Musk was brilliant before, you have to now.
Seriously. Python looks and feels kinda like octave fortran and is a natural first stop when a person can't afford matlab or other commercial tech options. Needless to say your're talking about number crunching. For web dev esp. now more than ever, why wouldn't you use the language of the web ie. Javascript/nodejs?
Time is the measure of change in our environment.
Therefore its perception is entirely subject to our sensory input.
The life cycle of our cells modulates our sensory input.
Our cells experience their environment individually.
Therefore our cells each perceive time uniquely.
Our consciousness is an averaging of all our cells' experience.
Socially, because we are all composed of similar components we have a similar experience of time.
Power of a 6 in a form factor easily held in the hand or shoved in a pocket ... and 3.5 mm audio socket.
Technically possible but ...
People will always want a person/organization to be held accountable when things go wrong.
Any person who will be held accountable will want to ensure some control over that for which they are accountable.
So there will always be a human in the loop as long as people expect there to be a human to blame when things go wrong.
What else could it be?
Have actually been to the rainforest in question. ... ... especially for insects which generally are a pretty hardy bunch of creatures.
Would really like to know how global warming is an issue
_This_ type of report is why there remain people highly skeptical of scientific pronouncements.
No data download available on the website and yet the telescope is funded by the federal government two provincial governments.
Why persist in buying phones without the plug?
As with the climate, either you're doing something about it or you are part of the problem.
And whining isn't 'doing something'.
Thomas Gold and Russian researchers before him were looking at this back in the 1950's. He wrote a book The Deep Hot Biosphere. One might suppose that the strident opponents of the theory (and Gold) have died or retired so science can now progress in this area.
" ... we are merely scratching the surface. If we sample more at the same site this number would easily double, triple, or even quadruple." ... you've never seen this before and you are making this prediction based on what exactly? One lump 16, two lumps 32, three lumps ....
Umm
WTF !!! I don't know any 60 year olds who aren't 'tech savvy'. Good grief
Climate change is real.
Horrible horrible things will happen we are told for example
Which gives rise to schemes like this.
Most climate change deniers aren't denying climate change, they are reacting to the fear-mongering with extreme distrust. They know opportunists will use that fear fuel it with misinformation and use it for political manipulation to profit. And the collateral damage will be just as bad or worse than the climate change itself.
That is the problem with the climate change 'debate'.
Climate change is real.
Horrible horrible things will happen we are told here (and elsewhere).
Which gives rise to schemes like this.
Most climate change deniers aren't denying climate change, they are reacting to the fear-mongering with extreme distrust. They know opportunists will use that fear fuel it with misinformation and use it for political manipulation to profit. And the collateral damage will be just as bad or worse than the climate change itself.
That is the problem with the climate change 'debate'.
If it's safe would it be possible to replace a contact lense with a modified cornea? Something like that safer than laser surgery.
The pace won't be the same because:
a) easily/moderately accessible resources are pretty much being exploited therefore $$$ will temper further exploitation
b) farms/cities can't be built just anywhere and already exist anywhere that is easily/moderately feasible.
Bottom line: nothing increases linearly forever. A scientist should know that. There will be a plateau and we've likely reached it.
Instead think: it is cheaper to increase efficiency of resource use and higher densities of habitation.
Epilogue: this sort of 'science' means well (maybe) but only makes people doubt scientists in the long run.
Which is fine if not for the fact that medicine draws absolute conclusions that affect you based on incomplete knowledge.
But that's science right?
And how much do we really know about the atmosphere and climate? And yet engineers and scientists are stepping up with "solutions".
It's not that science is incomplete, it's that people (profiteers and politicians) will try and make you believe it is.