there is not a single thing that could wipe out a deep sea habitat that wouldnt also wipe any space colonies. but i dont see anybody arguing for that, despite being far more achievable and practical. also, there is no feasible way for space colonies to be self sufficient anywhere in the near future, so wiping out earth also wipes out space colonies relying on it for supplies. this argument aboOt survivability is absurd.

via statistical imitation. other methods, such as solving and implementing by first principles analytically, has not been shown to be np hard. the difference is important but the end result is still no agigpt in the foreseeable and unforeseeable future.

the limitation is specifically using the primary machine learning technique, same one all chatbots use at places claiming to pursue agi, which is statistical imitation, is np-hard.

also the answer to that question, shitloads of data for a better ai, is yes… with logarithmic returns. massively underpriced (by cost to generate) returns that have questionable value statement at best.

could you expand on that?

see certain optical illusions in a way that other vision models cannot.

eh… but not in a way that is really like what humans see. which is the articles claim, but it makes a clasically cs approach to nuerology: zero effort to prove the quite substantial claim.

Word soup

that is most certainly not word soup. it’s also an accurate statement, though uncharitable to the authors claims.

Also, the detail in description of their “quantum” inspiration (an effect not unique to quantum mechanics in fact, at that level of description) reads like they skimmed wikipedia’s intro to xyz topic, whether or not the author understands the topics more deeply.

sorry are you saying people should pronounce their own names in ways they don’t prefer to be “correct”? Also etc etc language guides are descriptive not prescriptive.

Datas is correct if you are referring to multiple distinct populations of data. Which in this case works.

afaik no known cases

Did you actually look?

Sibling in existence I know asbestos must be airborne. You aren’t refuting anything by repeatedly saying that. Respond to the words I am saying or I can only assume you are copy pasting talking points.

It’s extremely easy to disturb asbestos, it does not take a large chronic exposure to get health consequences, it takes a very small amount of acute exposure or even less chronic exposure. Generally you will be fine from incidental one-off exposures, but if you live in a home with say, asbestos tiles in your kitchen, or asbestos in the paint or drywall, it can be very easy to build exposure from reno or damage from normal home wear. Not to mention it’s extremely expensive to modify because of the required controls, meaning it disproportionately effects low income households, who both struggle to afford preventative maintenance, and struggle to afford the reno.

There’s a reason asbestos ppe is decon controls roughly equivalent to mercury, lead, and beryllium.

Removed by mod

The internet as the internet companies percieved it would look like and sold it as absolutely and completely vanished, yeah.

The internet is a funny analogue!

Because it experienced the dot com crash under almost the same sort of circumstances.

Asbestos is not harmless to people living with it, all structures need repair and modification eventually (regularly) and unknown asbestos cutting or chipping can be incredibly hazardous.

Engineers of the past had very limited design knowledge, so generally subscribed to the “I don’t know how to do this. Oh well, more good, morer bettererer.”

Need is directly in opposition to please. This makes your addition an ironic use of please, and not a polite one, which actually fits the ops observation better than the initial comment did.

I mean I would and do in fact literally blame societal and familial problems when kids are brutal, unkind, or hurt others, and similarly blame societal and familial problems for when kids are not protected from brutal, unkind, and hurtful things.

Why are you saying the things you’re saying like a gotcha? Do you not feel that society has a significant impact on the behavior of youth?

No AI are to this level, are a massive security risk, and none are “smart”.

pay if it’s worth it

It isn’t.

Body weight exercises can build plenty of muscle. You only need specialized muscle targeting once you’re body building. For health body weight exercises are ideal, targeting individual muscles is not as useful to fitness as training many muscles in tandem for common movements.