It basically brute forces the solution, the same way a chess computer does, the problem is that it just doesn't have nearly enough context yet.

Some people have never heard of the halting problem.

Still more don't understand what the halting problem is and when it might or might not be relevant to a programming question.

Who cares what the self-important talent thinks?
If they want to do something about it, take their vast wealth and instead of buying a 3rd home in St Tropez, set up a production co-op.
It's been done before.

"United Artists is an American film production and distribution company owned by Amazon MGM Studios. In its original operating period, it was founded on February 5, 1919 by Charlie Chaplin, D. W. Griffith, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks as a venture premised on allowing actors to control their own financial and artistic interests rather than being dependent upon commercial studios." (wiki)

Put up, or shut up.

....part of me wonders about the opposite end of the 'tragedy of the commons'.

If a state were, for example, to ban all power plants within its borders, should it benefit from electric power created by such plants? (Of course the libertarian capitalist answer is they they're free to do so, but this gives pricing leverage to the states that ARE willing to suffer the siting of a power plant in their borders....)

Same with data centers. I recognize all their ills, and that (it certainly seems) that much of them are driven by people generating AI videos of the six-million-dollar-man as a cat. Will they suffer for that choice somehow? Should they?

40 years ago the best chess playing computers could beat almost everybody except good club players
30 years ago few other than top GMs could beat them
20 years ago even GMs struggled to beat them
10 years ago a GM was doing well if they could draw.

I see "AI" programming going the same way. Claude is really good at writing code given good constraints but some things are completely beyond it. It's written code in seconds that would have taken me hours, and it's taken a day to fail to solve a single repeatable crash that I solved in two hours.

It basically brute forces the solution, the same way a chess computer does, the problem is that it just doesn't have nearly enough context yet. Humans don't consciously remember 10 million lines of code, but a good programmer on a known codebase knows which bits matter, which bits to refer to etc to solve an issue. Claude (and any other LLM) just doesn't have enough context to be able to brute force something that depends on too much "across the code base" knowledge.

The level of bad faith argumentation here is sadly, unsurprising.

The same /. bunch who seem to generally believe that "everyone should learn coding!" are a fairly narrow socio economic cadre who would predictably denigrate faith. As Haidt would define you/us, it's WEIRD: Western, educated, individualist, rich, and democratic.
Understand, you are a tiny, tiny fraction of people in the world. There are literally billions of people enjoying very happy fulfilling lives for generation after generation in the faith contexts you sneer at.
To assert you have some sort of a magical monopoly on truth that they don't have access to is, well, bordering on Papal infallibility.
They don't lust for our lives; in fact to many of them our lives are empty, valueless scrabbling over material goods and status unmoored from family, tradition, culture, and continuity.

To the point of the article: llms aren't people. The idea of teaching them faith is fundamentally stupid and is nothing more then a propaganda exercise to promote them commercially.

It feels like we can agree on that without needing to virtue-signal to each other about how and why we all despise religion with a moral certainty that wouldn't be unfamiliar to a Christian missionary determined to save brown people's souls.

If it helps, I fully agree you shouldn't have kids?

Why am I utterly not shocked that rsilvergun believes it failed because it didn't go woke enough?
The simpler explanation, that people were tired of having a parade of identity-characters shoved down their throat in lieu of actually-compelling plots, of course can't be the case?

Setting ENTIRELY aside the woke crap, starfleet academy was awful. 90210 in space storylines and writing were childish. TOS stories faced serious moral dilemma and yes, often solved them with a liberal, positive, idealistic outcome. Deeply unlikable teenagers saving the day because of (implausible mcguffin) is just lame and lazy as fuck. Everyone *hated* Wesley Crusher, of COURSE we should fill a ship with even more repellent versions of him, focus on their inter social Twilight-caliber bullshit, and frame it with Star Trek.... OF COURSE the fan base will love it! Green light that!

.. maybe they would understand 1248 words is in no sense a "summary"?

...except that even with all those things, German fertility (Germans 1.23, Non natives 1.84) (highest in 33 y https://qz.com/811195/immigran...) is STILL lower than US norms (https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity) (whites 1.56, average 1.65).

If Germans is such a paradise for mothers having kids...why aren't they?

> Copilot is just the icing on the cake, the cherry on top, or the chef's kiss if you like.

I prefer "the turd that won't flush"

"....except for closing the deal and signing the paperwork". In other words, the one step where it matters to the company that it got everything right. Previous steps where it only matters to you if it got things right? Pah.

My understanding from the various blogs is that they have indeed 'developed their own', in that they worked jointly to get a design together. The panel isn't going to be the same as in previous folding phones, and that's actually one reason for the later launch vs other manufacturers.

Source is just the various rumour blogs on my RSS feeds, I'm no expert here.

I know it's important for you to misstate the reality but illegals != Immigrants.

And yes, by all means blame Trump for a birth rate decline that's been steady since more or less the late 50s.

(shrug)
I too for the opposite reason, having been banned just before musk buyout for saying "we have trannies doing strip shows for children" in a David Axelrod thread.

And no, I won't delete a factually true post just to rescue a shit account.

They smashed protons together at relativistic energies and found particles in the debris. That's not "particles emerging from empty space" â" that's particles emerging from a high-energy collision.

That's not how I read it (although I'm also only relying on the summary)

I read it as:

It's a given in the standard model that even in a perfect vacuum at absolute zero virtual (pairs of) particles are constantly being created and destroyed. While we can detect some side effects of that, the particles themselves cannot be detected or measured but we know that these virtual pairs must obey certain "rules" and, in particular, must be correlated in particular ways.

However, provide enough energy and those virtual pairs of particles can become real. When they become real they still have to obey the constraints that the virtual particles had to have.

What they have done here (assuming I've understood enough) is to provide enough energy so that the virtual particles can become real (surely this isn't surprising) and, additionally, detected the required correlations that the virtual particles made real must have.

I know nowhere near enough to know how they distinguished these virtual pairs made real from coincidence pairs created through "normal" proton-proton collisions but I assume that's covered in their paper.