Only reason I have LI is because I got access prior to public release back in 2003. I got laid off and my manager recommended it.

It's not that. LLMs reproduce an output of consciousness, but they way they do so isn't fundamentally any different than a tape recorder or even a book. It's a deterministic process that we can fully reproduce by doing calculations on a piece of paper.

It's not that there's some "magic" in our brains, but there's obviously a very complex process at work that we don't understand. It's also true that the "neural networks" used to run LLMs have only the most superficial similarity to actual brains. Just because LLMs can produce similar reasoning it doesn't mean they're suddenly able to produce other second order effects.

Is it possible that LLMs reproduce this process? We can't authoritatively say no if we don't understand the process. But that's no different from saying a rock way also be conscious.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Dawkins doesn't have any.

Nah, there's more than enough smoke to conclude that Altman's style rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Whether you think that's a problem or a virtue is another matter.

Early users testing the service have touted competitive perks, including 3% cash back on eligible purchases

That's about the same as merchant fees, meaning the transactions themselves are probably a loss leader once you factor in all the stuff like fraud and dispute resolution.

I'm guessing Musk sees the real value as the dataset of shopping behaviours. Either that or that cash back rate is going to plummet once the service gets established.

Plenty of trucks and other vehicles have little or any effective view directly out the back. To be blunt: If you need to look through your rear-view mirror to not kill someone, you either need better side mirrors or you need to learn to drive.

Not really, the tech companies have been doing this for years.

They hire a bunch of folks at high salaries, but not all of those work out, and managers hate laying folks off.

So they make big across-the-board cuts and now everybody from top to bottom is forced to make a bunch of tough decisions about who to cut.

You don't get rid of the worst 10% of your work force, but on average, the 10% you lose is less valuable than the 90% you keep.

And then you go hire some more.

Don't you watch For All Mankind? Everyone there uses a Zune instead of iThings.

But that's what they told POTUS because he'd brag about means and methods.

No, they're arguing there's ways to use their software to commit an illegal act, which is true of literally anything.

I can't imagine anyone making the argument that using AI tools to rewrite code in another language removes the copyright.

Not exactly, because the amount of stearates that came off the gloves would be fairly random, so there's no way to apply a general correction. You might not even know what kind of gloves they used in the experiment!

That doesn't mean you throw out the results, but you maybe mark those results and say there was potential factor unaccounted for and the results needs to be replicated.

I came here to look for this and add it if I didn't find it.

Lunar "soil" is essentially neutral, just needs some additives. Conversely, Martian "soil" is actually poisonous. Additives alone aren't sufficient to get things to grow in it, you need to remove the poisonous parts first.

Net: It's easier to grow plants in lunar rather than Martian "soil".

The gold-standard tasteful way to handle stuff like this is cast a friend of the original actor. An example is Jon Lovitz replacing Phil Hartman on Newsradio.

I agree they could possibly get away with AI since it's being driven by his cast mates, but I don't think they'd try it.

It's an interesting journalistic debate. On the one hand their job is to report, not to help people stay anonymous.

But Banksy is part performance art, and his anonymity is part of that, by revealing his identity you arguably destroy the art work.

I feel like this expose kinda gets forgotten because Banksy was never completely anonymous, the reason he's not really known is that people recognize the anonymity is part of it and they don't want to know who he is.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it does.

Not in the slightest.

It just shows we have some levers to reduce consumption that we don't normally use.

It doesn't show that we can reasonably use those levers long term, not that those levers are actually sufficient to reduce fuel consumption enough to make up the difference.