Do they though? Last time I checked, HDR on Linux is a no go, multi-monitor support is iffy, and GPU drivers are a never-ending story of not-quite-there.

As a server OS, Linux is godlike. As an OS for software engineering, it is pretty great. As a consumer desktop OS it's .. meh.

Yeah, honestly, fuck these people. Sure, they have some talent, but that is massively overvalued to begin with. Taylor Swift is a fucking billionaire. Eat that, doctors, nurses, sanitation workers, etc. You should have learned to kinda sing, be pretty and be lucky.

I think there is some tweaking they could do one way or the other. In the French pronunciation the American accent only very rarely comes through with most Rs being rolled properly (quite pronounced even for a native speaker, I'd say). The German version has far more of the accent.

I would imagine that the training (result) can be skewed towards the correct pronunciation if desired (or even stronger towards the original speaker's accent, although it is pretty hard to imagine many valid use cases for that).

Listen to the samples in the linked OpenAI blog post. It does indeed preserve the native accent (which makes it sound like an American trying to speak a foreign language).

Well, it is fair to say that I don't know for certain, but: the results revolve around a very traumatic experience of being shocked.

The article even says this:
"To better understand the part these DNA breaks play in memory formation, Radulovic and her colleagues trained mice to associate a small electrical shock with a new environment, so that when the animals were once again put into that environment, they would ‘remember’ the experience and show signs of fear, such as freezing in place. "

Note the quotes around 'remember'. That's not referring to a "what did I eat yesterday" kind of memory (episodic), but something far more primitive.

The end of the article also talks about the other already known mechanisms involved in (normal) memory formation.

The journalist who wrote the title "Memories Are Made By Breaking DNA - and Fixing It" and the editor who approved it need to be fired and go work at Buzzfeed or something.

Yes, technically, for some definition of 'memories' one can argue that the title is not false. It's clickbaity and misleading as fuck though, as the percentage of what people understand to be 'memories' that is impacted by this is incredibly small.

See, now this is the interesting question here. What are the bottlenecks for (semi-)humanoid robots to become 'good enough' to replace lots of manual workers?

- The backflipping antics of Boston Dynamics' Atlas is a testament to the general level of agility hardware and software have reached. A lot of the other robot companies need to do a lot of catchup here with their wobbly locomotion, but it's not going to take 10 years.
- Figure01 shows that ML-driven relatively fine motor skills can be copied from humans and that the hardware and software for manipulation of light objects with hands is far enough along to do most crude factory tasks. I think there is quite a bit to go to get it all up to the level of being able to sew clothes, but many tasks don't require that.
- Planning of tasks is pretty clearly a solved problem, at least for most simple tasks in manual labor.
- Situational awareness and navigating the world is definitely far enough along to allow working in reasonably controlled environments (only having to deal with other employees and not with the unpredictable general public makes this a lot easier).

So what remains?
Cost, power source (it's no good if your superadvanced bot needs to be charged 2 hours for every 30 minutes of work). Being waterproof?

You've clearly not used either of those recently. Even with all the hallucinations, ChatGPT4 and Gemini Advanced responses are 10x quicker and more useful than digging through Googles trash search results that may or may not have anything to do with your query.

Stop talking out of your ass and actually try.

The measure "subjective age" is just idiotic to begin with. What the hell does it mean to say "I feel three months younger"?
As if people have a sense of what feeling is associated with their biological age that is precise enough to warrant detailed numerical measurement and (inter-subject!) aggregation. Undoubtedly subjects are going to do some fairly random mental mapping from "I feel like shit" to "I feel # years older".

They have some weird partnerships, though:
"including Trelleborg for use in coated fabrics and RhinoShield for use in the production of cell phone cases"

You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that organics aren't complex. The point is that the complexity has no significant effect no and is not a fundamental requirement for intelligence.

Your line of reasoning could easily be extended to quantum mechanics: The internal state of just a single proton is incredibly complex. It is a maelstrom of temporary and/or virtual quarks and gluons that average out to some semi-predictable state. All of those things exist with various levels of uncertainty along several dimensions. Does that prevent us from making predictions in chemistry? No. No, it does not. The level of abstraction at which you are arguing complexity and inscrutability is simply not the level at which intelligence 'lives'.

I know intelligence "feels" special, but it really isn't all that amazing. It's rare in biological evolution, but what it actually functionally does is pretty straightforward. It's hard to see any other type of intelligence arising in a biological entity that desires survival.

I'm sure you are familiar with convergent evolution. The speed of light is a very significant factor in the evolution of the eye. The speed of signals in organics maxes out at about 200m/s (100m/s in humans). The speed of signals in AI is close to 300.000.000m/s. Now tell me at which speed internal signals will propagate in whatever comes after us according to the insights of convergent evolution.

Flying cars are just as stupid and shortsighted as flying horse carriages or flying horses. Thinking that such things are the future is clear proof that somebody is bad at predicting it because they can only see stuff they already know, but slightly different.

We have incredibly advanced airplanes, airships, helicopters, quadcopters, drones, and even space 'ships'. Note that we also already have flying cars. It's just that they suck ass compared to the alternatives.

For AI a lot of people can only think along the line of cybernetics ("humans, but slightly different!"), but fail to see the space ship on the verge of launching. 5 years is a long fucking time in the world of technology.

So you suggest giving it agency and a profit incentive?

Smart.

I was precise and said "very strongly [implied]". That is enough for most of the general public to misinterpret it.

Ask yourself this: How many people reading the wording from the journalists, without also reading a comment about correlation vs. causation, will interpret and remember it as "intermittent fasting causes heart attacks"?

The same people saying "it's too early to make specific recommendations about intermittent fasting based on his research alone."

The remark of GP is wholly justified because TFS says this: 'But an analysis presented Monday at the American Heart Association's scientific sessions in Chicago challenges the notion that intermittent fasting is good for heart health. Instead, [...]"

The journalists here (in search of clicks) are not listening to the people with the PhDs. The people with the PhDs are not claiming causation. The journalists are very strongly implying it, however.

Go ahead. Ask ten (properly) random people on the street whether they know that. I guarantee that the majority of them has no clue what you're talking about. Most people don't even know what 'causation' or 'correlation' even mean. Get out of your bubble.