When we, as a nation, decide to let lawyers and politicians set scientific policy, we're gonna get what we deserve.

I've tried it for a variety of things, mostly when I couldn't figure them out myself. It tends to hallucinate when it doesn't know the answer. It would be more useful if it just said, "I don't know" on occasion.

Thanks for the clarification.

Huh? Where does this rule of "ball is solid and sphere is hollow" come from? You're making this up, aren't you?

Chemists here. Outside of Alpha-fold, which is an astounding success based on a large but limited and curated data set, AI hasn't shown much use in replacing chemist. It's very difficult to capture the chemical literature in an accurate and meaningful way. And with the explosion in the volume of scientific publishing, you can bet a lot of the newer stuff isn't high quality. LLM's don't know how to capture structures. My forays into asking for structural information turn up nonsense. Unfortunately, if you're doing anything these days, you're gonna have to say you're using AI to be considered serious, regardless of whether it works or not.

My wife has noticed that a number of friends that used to be, well, not skinny, have been looking a little trimmer these days. Who remembers "Does she or doesn't she?"? There's a new twist on that old ad.

I want to quit seeing shit like this. Except, maybe, if it's all tongue-in-cheek. But only if I don't get fooled. On second thought, I was right the first time.

Be careful there. I started talking like this on Reddit one time and I was subjected to a sustained and blistering attack. It was down voted so far that you could probably never find it again. Then someone copied my comment from an economics subreddit and reposted it on the cryptocurrency subreddit and they were even more viscous.

I bought 100 shares of AAPL in 1989. So I've paid attention. I've seen this same story a bunch of times over the years. Although it always feels like "this time it's different", it's been best to ignore these stories.

Wow! 1658! You must be from Michigan!

I'm sitting here with a bunch of perfectly fine old Apple .PICT vector graphic files that I can't read with anything. It's good to know there will be technology so that in 5000 years, they still won't be readable.

This feels so inconsistent to me.

Actually, I know what a standard deviation is. The way it was used in the article synopsis was bullshit and meaningless. Sorry for being a little obtuse in my cynical posts.

I get what the article is saying in a general way. But how am I supposed to know whether this "0.060 standard deviation improvement " is significant? It's bigger than 0.041, so Facebook is worse than instagram. Where is /. on this scale? TikTok? The Bible? Should I have to take a stats course to understand this synopsis? Help me here.

If a college wants to use an essay to assess a student for whatever it is they're assessing him/her/they for, them let them do it. Why would you think it's even reasonable to ban such a thing? Are they useless or maybe misleading? Maybe. Are they unfair? Maybe. Should they be dropped? Maybe. Should they be banned? No. And who is it that decides such stuff? Is this some sort of like back-door affirmative action.

Maybe essays suck, but we don't need a new rule.