Thanks. It doesn't appear in my Apps list, so I probably took it out via the ADB interaction. However, I don't like seeing it in the list of possible "Digital Assistants" if it's been uninstalled.

Oblig. Dr. Ian Malcolm: "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

That's good to hear!

Now, how do I rip out Gemini, or ensure it's never installed?

It's a very good question. It looks like it was mainly failures to generate a result within a predetermined time. Some of the failures were due to cryostat hardware failures (a fridge went out during a NIST campus closure); some due to fiber + interferometer polarization drifts; and so on. It also appears that [perhaps?] a few of the misses are due to latencies in the timetaggers to record a common timebase. I can't quite tell from the arXived version of the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.052...

All in all, it's a marvelously good overview of the impressive experiment!

It's also happening tomorrow, according to the summary. Hmmmmmmm...

Hm. Perhaps this is a use of 'grifter' I wasn't aware of.

How is Geerling a "grifter"?

So you're saying that neither of the groups of people (one of which includes you) keep their eyes on the road. This directly contradicts your previous message. Cute.

Eyeline != focus. You're not keeping your eyes on the road.

It's What Plants Crave

A bunch of billionaires who shouldn't have had copyright a day later than 14 years are whining that they can't have even more intellectual property stuffed into copyright.

AI is not copying your songs. They're learning from them to make something different. Humans do this every time they create something new and are influenced by what came before.

We need to reduce copyright back to 7 years where it's economically justified to encourage innovation. And allow low income creators the chance to renew for up to another 7 years later. Waiting a century before copyright expires is simply mad.

There's always money in the banana stand, Michael.

Copyright is being abused and it's no longer about encouraging innovation. If concentrates wealth and is a key driver of inequality. It has been extended and extended. It went from a reasonable 7 years to 14 years renewable to 28, then life of the author plus 50 to life plus 70 years.

It was extended to buildings which is completely ridiculous. They industry tried but failed to extend it to clothing. There is absolutely no reason why an AI shouldn't read a work because it doesn't compete by selling a copy of the original work.

Copyright holders have no limit to their greed. (I don't want to debate a straw man of an AI reproducing an entire text verbatim. Yes, it happened briefly but that does not happen anymore.)

AI cannot replace human human touch or smell. Human touch is inversely correlated to anxiety, depression and stress.

Human touch calms us and slows down our heartbeat. It lowers blood pressure and cortisol. It triggers the release of oxytocin, (the hormone known for promoting emotional bonding to others.)

Humans are constantly smelling themselves and other people. A study in 2020 revealed that people subconsciously smell members of the same sex more often than those of different sex.

Researchers have found evidence that the explosion in teenage depression is linked to insufficient human interaction because its replaced by digital interaction.

AI friends sounds like the stuff of a dystopian sci-fi movie.

I'm pretty sure it's the division between the "shut up and calculate" point of view, and the one which seeks to /explain/ the rules for the calculations.
Quantum *mechanics* is pretty well accepted: it works under a great many circumstances!
It's also reviled as an *explanation*: it's hard to generalize the rules, and interpreting them in any palatable way (as, for example, explaining what is an observer and what it means to make an observation) is apparently impossible. Thus the enduring presence of people who are bringing back objections that the "shut up and calculate" response is a poor one. See, e.g. Carroll, Barandes, et alia.
Few physicists are happy with the Copenhagen interpretation, for the reason you mentioned and for many others. However, I note that you clearly have not given an alternative interpretation.