But unlike "could," medical science is very, very sure that ageing correlates with increased incidence of heart attack and stroke.

Put on your critical thinking caps, kids. What this is is an indication of is avenues of further - possibly fruitful - research, and nothing else.

Could we please dispense with the pro-environmental fear machine? Keep this up and when something worse than global climate change comes along nobody will believe it. It's arguable that it was so easy to mislead people about climate change because of exactly this kind of thing in the press.

I don't know why your response made me think this, but:

The only thing that stops a bad guy with an AI model is a good guy with an AI model.

In this case, the NYT appears to have used Microsoft's own AI model to prove that it's being ripped off by Microsoft. I don't care what the prompt was. Well done.

(*golf clap*)

More like putting rules into this is about equivalent to killing a fly in a diverse ecosystem. Who knows what will happen? Probably the Butterfly Effect, eh?

It's all in the data set. Exactly. Who decided to build a set of the entire internet? Someone who doesn't understand people. This is one time where so many coders on the spectrum is a really bad thing.

At Google: We wrote the code. We know it works. We know how it works, but we have no idea what the implications and effects of throwing a data set this large at an iterative algorithm will do. When it does stuff like this, we don't even really know why. Too many data points. Too many cycles. We just write more rules and hope for the best.

Guys. We love you. Really we all do. This is going to be a great tool!

It is a toy right now. It is your toy. You have a lot of work to do, all of the models across all vendors, before it's ready for production. Like a decade. The good news is you get to FAFO. Stop releasing this stuff to the public. This is one time when QA can't be skimped on.

I watched a Mythbusters episode on the moon landing with my 10 yo daughter where they broke a bunch of the conspiracy theories.

I calmly explained to my daughter, so she would understand what was going on, that the answer or "bust" to every myth would be, "Because they're on the fucking moon." It cut through a lot of the advanced science, and helped her to understand that the moon has different physical properties than earth.

So a 10 yo can understand it if you break it down into simple enough terms.

I used Paperclip on the C=64 well into college. I wrote print "drivers" for my daisy wheel printer so it could do proportional spacing.

Not the version with spellcheck, to my professors' frustration.

From TFS:

I highlighted the relevant information to aid in your reading comprehension.

It's the Kinect 2, now with "Co-pilot."

You've never seen anything like it!

Only if the device gets smaller. FTFY.

A lot of people are complaining about VR in general because it just isn't there yet. Nobody wants to strap a lunchbox to their face. Not for any significant period of time, at least. It's still gee whiz territory.

Apple didn't revolutionize it. They didn't listen to the general complaints about VR and thought their logo and social cachet would make them money on what they tend to like to sell: Sexy and trendy and "it just works."

If it isn't actually the future of computing, and you're identifying size as the problem, they didn't ship "it just works." I think you've answered your own question about why people are ridiculing this, and it isn't because they hate Apple.

Just like Apple TV. Seems like they're overlooking this flaw.

I want fire that can be fitted nasally. The entire process you mentioned can be shipped out on the B-ark.

Only decadent, wealthy (and perhaps decaying) societies need step two, because otherwise the product will reveal itself if you look hard enough, the need or benefit is evident, and the funds used to pay for it are therefore non-discretionary or a good value. IOW, the business puts in actual work researching pain points that match their business model (the only valid step 1) and the rest takes care of itself.

$3,500 for, "It's cool, it's premium parts, and we hope it has a use case some day" is bad business. It is cool. Very few people have a valid use for it though.

So I reject that sitting around thinking up something people don't need just to make money is a valid process. These people are just involved in speculation. It's "on spec." They may have just as well come up with the pet rock and get their money for nothing if it pans out, and cut their losses if it doesn't.

What a colossal waste of energy. I hope there's a shareholder suit.

FFS. The tipping point could bloody well be an average 1e-14 degrees more than 1.6 over [insert arbitrary period of time]. Why can't these people just say, "We don't really know. We were pulling the first number out of thin air - as an aspirational goal and a rough guess at a safe figure. It was not a scientifically significant figure. We won't pull another one out because the first didn't work, and we're now very sure we're in unsafe territory." What's more, I'm sure the scientists actually said that in less glib terms. This is science reporting that is trying to "help you understand the numbers" when you simply can't. Not without a Ph.D.

Or, sigh, maybe there is no catastrophic tipping point. I think there's enough evidence that there is, but we're in totally uncharted territory here. It is possible for scientists to get it wrong. Science is built on falsifiability.

The messaging sucks. It has to change. So what we passed an arbitrary number? We still need to do better. SE Wisconsin just had a tornado in early February. Something's clearly up.

But enough already with playing scientist. The actual scientists have the numbers. They mean nothing to anyone who isn't in the field, especially the WaPo science desk. It's okay to tell people "You do not understand the numbers, let's explain consequences."

I would suggest qualitative terms instead of quantitative. Try "Any increase in average temperatures is a risk; we don't know over what period, or how serious a risk, but 1.5C is already having significant effects on weather that match climate science predictions. It's critical that we limit any more increase. We embarked into very risky territory when we passed 1.5C. That's why scientists chose that number."

Stop talking in pseudo-science and start putting this in real terms. They don't involve numbers. We stop pumping out greenhouse or we have mass displacements, wars, and famine. It doesn't matter at what temperature the mass extinction event is coming at. That's for the scientists to guess at, and most everyone else is incapable of understanding at all.

I think many of the people here saw this coming. Moving data onto someone else's iron is not cheaper, and maintaining it is more expensive and subject to glitching and outages. There's no substitute for physical access, despite all the provider assurances. There's also no substitute for being 50 ft from the kill switch. There are use-cases for cloud services, but they are not as common as hype was indicating. Very few businesses benefit from a remote deployment, and nearly everyone here saw that coming.

Turns out "cloud" is a marketing term. The idea has been around at least since "Thin Client" was a marketing term. I was confused by the term because I was around for "frame relay clouds," and it sure wasn't that.

So think of this: You think this is disappointing to the PHBs? Just wait until they get a load of how deflating "AI" is going to be. Hollywood execs thinking it'll write scripts. Lawyers thinking it'll be better than copy/pasting boilerplate. It won't.

The only application I've seen for AI is when MLM medical diagnostic systems can, for example, detect an arterial blockage that will cause a heart attack in the next 10 years that human doctors can't see. MLM is cool. That's going to revolutionize care.

But that's not LLM. LLM is getting all the hype rn. LLM is predictive text with an enormous database and a natural language prompt, AFAICS. Anyone else got a better description?

Dall-E 3 is pretty cool, but lifeless. It's good for quick and unique stock, but not artistry.

The idea that AI is going to save these cloud investments feels pretty laughable to me. It will in the short term, then everyone will catch on to the AI scam as it doesn't pan out. Hell, all this AI hype may be a way to keep cloud investments from incurring massive losses by finding a cloud application that people will buy into. I'd pull my money out of cloud providers other than file services pdq, if I had any in them. This is a house of cards.

A consultant would implement a cloud solution, not recommend it. We're very careful about letting people know what their options are and letting them pick their poison.