Are you talking about the scientific method? Asking other humans to do the same test to see if they get the same answer?

AI can do that too. They just need an api for doing the test (whatever it is), and they can easily have multiple separate instances of a model use the api and do the test, and then compare notes.

Most humans are not well-positioned to be running large hadron colliders, however. Mostly all they can do is read up on the information available online. And....AI can do that too!

Humans don't have some magical ability to just intuit truth from falsehood. And neither does AI.

So, my point stands.

There IS a difference in how humans are much quicker to state that they don't know something, whereas AI models tend to just make stuff up. This doesn't seem to be the exact same thing as being able to determine truth from falsehood, however. Incidentally, humans also sometimes make stuff up when they don't know the answer (key evidence: widespread belief in supernatural beings that want 10% of your income).

I already know everything worth knowing about the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Human employees cost a lot. AI is the holy grail of eliminating labor costs. As with any investment, it will cost a lot more in the short run than having human employees would, but once the next threshold is surpassed, the savings and profits will more than make up for it.

In theory, anyway.

The slightly less cynical take is that AI can empower humans to achieve more than they otherwise could. Rather than eliminating jobs, we get a lot more productivity from the same number of employees, thus producing everything that everybody wants even faster and in greater abundance.

Either way, it's clearly valuable to many people for many reasons, so it will naturally garner a lot of investment money.

Incidentally, humans aren't very good at telling facts from lies either.

I don't think this makes the next level of AI any easier to achieve, but I don't think "the ability to tell facts from lies" can be postulated as a defining quality of a human, nor something that differentiates humans from AI.

I don't think Meta can have it both ways like this. Either they respect their employees, or they don't.

I am just glad I don't work for Meta. I feel sad for you all. I hope you can find something better.

The evil for which we hate Microsoft is also the reason that we all know the name. They won't ever stop being evil because that's exactly how they maintain their wealth and power.

Well I don't know, I am not a lawyer. I know that there ARE laws that penalize malicious code, like the Computer Fraud and Abuse act, and that there is a legal concept of "protestware" that draws a distinction between a bug that causes data loss and intentional sabotage. And there are also license terms that disavow responsibility for any damages that may or may not hold up if intentional sabotage is established.

But all of this is outside of my domain. I was speaking generally, that there are laws against malicious software writing/distribution in general.

Based on what I read of this story, it sure sounds like intentional sabotage to me. An instruction to an AI that orders it to destroy data sounds like a "weaponized prompt" to me. It's one thing to say "this software might have bugs or not even work at all, and those bugs might cause harm, so that's your risk to take." It is quite another to deliberately code malicious prompts as a trap with the intent of harming those who fall into it. I don't think someone can do that and say "well my hands are clean because I said you use this software at your own risk." Even if the law is gray in this area because AI is new and emerging, the social principle here is pretty clear.

The original star wars movies had many elements that drew in audiences at the time, including a plot about a mystical force that was guiding a new hero on a path to save the galaxy from overwhelmingly oppressive tyranny. The events were significant and the family-tie shockers injected some drama and so they were good.

But "Star Wars: The Last Flop" lost the thread. Instead of a plot that was even more epic and had even more galactic significance, it just doubled-down on the family drama and kind of lumbered around, getting us nowhere new. There was plenty more to dislike in terms of how they ruined character arks and pushed a political agenda that did not sit well with much of the audience.

Ever since then, the franchise has been sliding downhill. I read summaries of the other movies and shows and they all sounded equivalently vapid. I think I am not alone in this opinion.

You are familiar with the idea that the tool should match the job? And in particular, that some tools are very poor fits for some jobs, but that doesn't make them bad tools (since they are intended for a different job)?

MongoDB exists solely to remind us that some tools are not right for any job.

As it turns out, there are laws against deploying malicious code, too.

And for similar reasons.

It is true that people should vet the code they use. But this truth does not give coders license to code malicious Trojans into their offerings.

How would you feel if your grocery store deliberately put poison into the food and then after you got sick said that it is your responsibility to test all the food you buy?

"I didn't kill him, the bullet did."

AI is here to stay. Acts of rebellion like this will only cause harm. This isn't some noble preservation of human dignity or anything. It's just punishing people for using new tools. Not cool.

Yeah. Eating too little variety risks leaving you without an essential nutrient. But the details matter of course. You can get all the needed nutrients on an all-plant diet so long as you are getting a proper variety of plants, and B12 one way or another.

"Omnivore" doesn't mean "you MUST eat a little bit of everything." It means "you CAN eat a huge variety of things."

Some meats, like red meat, have been shown to cause colon cancer. We didn't evolve out of that.

Our evolutionary strategy has largely been "eat whatever we can get our hands on, and get as much nutrition out of it as we can." There was never some magical perfect diet that kept us perfectly healthy. There was always just a set of complex needs that our bodies have, and a set of plants/animals available, and we just did what we could. So, many forms of food are both healthy and unhealthy for us, at the same time, in different ways.

Contrary to propaganda from the meat and dairy industry, it is totally possible to thrive on a vegan diet. Some people will have an easier time of this than others, because details about metabolism vary widely based on a person's genetics. One nutrient in particular, B12, causes a lot of confusion. That's one that our body must receive directly, we cannot synthesize it ourselves. Our most readily-available food source of it is animals, but not because those animals synthesize it in their bodies...but rather....because they eat dirt-covered food right off the ground (or consume food along with the river/sea water that surrounds it). B12, you see, is exclusively made by a family of microorganisms, and everything that needs it ultimately gets it from that source (sometimes by means of intermediaries). Supplemental B12 is not some chemically synthesized frankenfood....it is just harvested straight from colonies of microorganisms that produce it. So, strict vegans are going to need to take a supplement for that (or....eat home-grown carrots straight from their yard without washing them first).

Beyond that, our bodies are really good at extracting the nutrients they need from plants. Plants also provide phytochemicals (which meats do not), so they are useful to us above-and-beyond whatever meat we might eat.