Are you saying that if I ask AI what Tesla would have thought about new tsunami wave observations, it will hallucinate what the NY Times would say?

If AI is so unusable because all it does is hallucinate, as I've learned from slashdot, why is the NY Times concerned?

Is it hard to imagine how an old man might post a thought and then think of something to add, but slashdot has no editing posts feature?

"Two gauges didnâ(TM)t line up with tsunami predictions from earlier seismic and geodetic source models â" one recorded the waves earlier than expected, and the other recorded them later."

Since some readers get butthurt if I post ChatGPT responses, shall I leave as an exercise for the reader to ask ChatGPT how Tesla would interpret these observations?

Was Tesla vindicated?

And that is actually the problem with this "story": Self-driving cars are held to a much higher standard. That is neither rational nor useful.

Delivering equipment to the 3rd Reich to aid in the killing of jews. Funny how history repeats itself.

You do realize where you are, do you? This is not a classroom and some basic understanding is required to play. You clearly lack that.

Don't be a (mentally) lazy fuck. There is a large body of literature on this question.

Indeed. The difference is that everything you assume (not believe) to be a fact needs to come with evidence and need do be falsifiable (i.e. evidence that proves it is wrong could be obtained if it is wrong). Obviously, you, personally, cannot verify everything. But you can verify some things and it is expected that you did, usually in school. The only assumption that you need to be able to make is that all the other facts were verified by somebody.

In contrast, with faith/belief, there is no verification. Nobody has ever successfully verified that God (which ever one) does exist. There are some plausibility arguments, but they are all weak and many are basically not even argument but just serve to confuse the question by adding complexity. None of these meet scientific standards. And that claim is not falsifiable either: You cannot disprove God exists. What ever proof you have, it would be limited, because in some dark corner of the universe, God could be hiding away, ignoring everybody. Hence "God exists" does not even need the requirements for a scientific claim, regardless of whether that statement is true or not. This is the reason why Atheists say things like "God does almost certainly not exists".

In short, you can "believe" scientific facts (or not), but in doing so you do not participate in Science and you are not using the scientific method. Any claim to Science being about belief is simply a direct lie though.

PLA is also not very durable. In hot and humid climate, PLA can decompose in a few months. PLA is, in some sense, a great prototyping material but not suitable for most other tasks.

Yep, that nicely sums it up.

I'd say don't give him any ideas, but republicans have already suggested it, and after demolishing the east wing, all bets are off. He's just meglomanical enough to try.

Israel should be able to do war crimes because america does war crimes is lizard brain logic. both countries need to cut it out.

A school bus, with the red lights flashing, may NOT be passed on either side. This is to prevent children from being run over. Texas cops are quick to fine anyone who does, and it's hammered into your head in Drivers Ed.

In some states it's not a big deal, and so many of those people moved to Texas to get away from their states, only to turn Texas into what they hated. They don't learn.