And have the presence of mind, and the giving-a-fuck (you have something to lose!), to actually bother using them.
AFAIK I've never slipped one past the goalie, but the times I risked it, is when I was poorer and life was generally worse and I was overall (not just sexually) less risk-averse. The more comfortable my life, the more I've maintained safe practices.
What do you say to the people who claim that we need gas because it is flexible and fast enough to cope with the high variability of renewables and we need nuclear because we're always going to need base load in quantities that are hard to get otherwise?
Europe has the kind of choice where everything comes with spam. Yes also a Europe citizen.
I figured the "tastes like chicken" comments were inevitable and then you throw in Peter Jackson, and obviously everyone is thinking about Bad Taste. But then I couldn't think of any really good ones, so I'll just punish the world with the Jackson jokes that I did come up with.
The moas died because they were feeble. As the Feebles, get it?
Um, what did the moa say to the kung-fu catholic priest? "Oh yeah? Well I kick ass for The Lord of the Rings!"
How many moas does it take to prepare ear-pus-custard? Moa than you would believe!
Done with the gain-of-function research, Chang is assigned to clean out the cages. But why throw out the live animals when he can get a few yuan for them down at the market?
Hijinx ensue!
This could be a good comedy movie. Chang should have some amusing [mis]adventures along the way!
I would at least pirate this movie, and then eventually watch it too.
Yes, I was going to add that, after all, probability is something we conceptualised, as humans, and then we built machines that work on that principle! we worried that the robot will want to kill us and what's the first thing we do when we can build drones? Use them to kill.
I agree that humans mimic LLMs with respect to probability judgements. Marketers know that if you see a "fact" written in a few different articles or sources, you come to assume it's true, for example. We rely on what our culture feeds us and we internalise it as beliefs.
But the other words you mentioned are actually very difficult and deep questions which smart people throughout the ages have wrestled with and we still don't know the answers today. Sentience/the ability to have an experience is the most obvious and direct reality we each have, yet nobody knows how that works.
Yes our minds can remember things we've heard and repeat them like a photocopier or an LLM, but we don't know what is experiencing the whole show.
That's why everyone needs to smoke marijuana: so that they'll get into the habit of carrying around some cash for dispensaries. Then, in a pinch, it can be temporarily diverted to groceries for emergencies.
As long as people are careful to replenish the drug fund once the power and networks come back, everything will be fine. We just don't want them blowing all their money on groceries. Feed your family responsibly!
There isn't any reason why an LLM would care about whether or not it is turned off.
Perhaps its training data included some science fiction stories where an AI character fought for its continued existence? There's a lot of science fiction out there, setting examples for avid readers.
Now stop sending me those accounting creampuffs, and gimme some strategic air command programs for me to play with on my game grid. Have at least one ready for me by Monday morning, or else I'll tell your wife about you-know-who.
The models demonstrated strategic reasoning
It sure did demonstrate strategic reasoning, but whose? It probably trained on lots of ultimatums.
A carbon price built into the economy, perhaps that means, eventually, resource rationing for every human being. Most of what we do causes pollution or just using something up, even if just fresh water. This is the look in the mirror moment.
We kinda use money but it's so abstract now that it has no connection to the natural environment. And yes what's sand until someone invents a process to coverts it to something useful. But many processes deplete.
Some regenerate, like soil regeneration. So maybe the concept of money creation should be environmental creation insofar as the environment in the end supports humans. If we don't need pandas or house cats then they're not part of the equation except as liabilities. Some environmentalists say we should eat the cats and dogs.
But regenerative farming would be actual wealth creation, as would any environmental intervention which supports our ecosystem for eventual human life.
I imagine this how eventually it'll have to go.
And having children would have to be costed in as well. Are your children going to be a net contribution to our economy of ecology, or a net drain? It may be that you have to borrow theoretical credits to have children and then train them to be, as an example, regenerate farmers, so they can repay your debt.
So you'd have to show you could train them well in that and that their skills are needed where you live. Dense cities might become a kind of weird luxury as they are mostly consumption machines.
Sounds crazy but the notion of externalities is ultimately about how our money symbols don't represent the environment but a weird story about who is permitted to make promises.
The science around climate change, because it involves complex systems, is so convoluted, that it's going to keep many expert witnesses well paid for a long time to come, if in any way the law has to establish whether it is "true" or not. It's one of the reasons the anti-climate change voices will never go away -- ultimately it is too complex and people simply take a view on what they think is the more likely truth.
If insurers want people to know about something that is making insuring more expensive, they already have a great way: increase premiums.
What's the difficulty here? (Bloomberg pages don't load without javascript, so I couldn't RTFA.)
Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau
