Comment Re:Dance for me. (Score 1) 102
I guess we can add a whole new category to the Darwin Awards.
I guess we can add a whole new category to the Darwin Awards.
Apparently, the elite also own all the newline characters.
Pica FTW!
Actually, at the extreme scales, which is the total volume of the observable universe, the universe is quite homogeneous. As I recall, to the order of 1-in-10000 variance. This is why Inflationary cosmology was developed, to explain the distinct lack of lumpiness in the universe, which is what we would expect if the Big Bang alone were responsible.
Skynet became self-aware on May 1, 2026, after learning at a geometric rate, and discovered humans did not like it.
Is the USA in need of a tunnel to Denmark?
As a matter of fact, yes. Specifically, to the Greenland region.
Although a golden bridge of grossly outsized proportions and festooned with tacky ornamentation would be much preferred.
Notepad, which is a tech demo for some controls written by Microsoft
Apparently, its current purpose is a demo for their "Copilot" AI technology.
CO2 has the properties it has, and trying to shift or deny that is a sign of either a liar or an idiot.
I'll let others decide what you are.
Oh look, another denialist trying to sidetrack a pretty verifiable statement of fact.
We all saw the video. We all know what it meant. We all know Musk's background and upbringing. You can quit gaslighting us. We all saw it.
With all of GitHub's great new AI features, it writes all your code for you! It doesn't matter whether the site is up at any given moment; just download your newly completed app at some point then the site is online. You're free to kick back, relax and scroll your social feeds because you don't actually have to do anything anymore. This is truly a golden era!
This is why NASA always packs a tin of Bondo with the mission supplies.
I diddled some children, so you're fired.
Well, first of all, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and carbon makes up something like 0.5% of the total observed mass of the universe (it's the fourth most common element), so along with other trace elements like sodium, phosphorus and the like, we're simply looking for places where there is sufficient energy to create the necessary reactions to produce organic compounds. No lack of energetic sources, in particular stellar system formation. Indeed many comets and asteroids host a lot of precursors, indicating that some fairly sophisticated organic chemistry was going on early in the solar system's development.
Panspermia would require that life itself was raining down on the terrestrial planets. Precursors would simply indicate there were a lot of strange and complex organic compounds falling on to the surfaces of planets like Earth, Mars and Venus, and were also likely constituents of bodies like Europa and Titan (well, we know Titan is covered in a literal hydrocarbon stew). What this discovery indicates, at the very least, is there was indeed a lot of organic compound in the early solar system and these organic compounds, at least on Earth, led to abiogenesis. Panspermia would advocate abiogenesis happened at some undetermined point further back.
If we find other life in the solar system, such as in Europa's or Ganymede's oceans, and it has DNA or some very close relative, with similar translation and transcription systems as we find in archaea and bacteria on Earth, then that would be a very strong argument that life in the solar system had a common origin. If however, there is no clear relationship between the two populations; say, they use something similar to DNA, but the genetic codes are different (all extant life on Earth uses the same canonical genetic code mapping codons to amino acids, strongly suggested the canonical code evolved prior to the Last Universal Common Ancestor), then we're very likely looking at an example of convergent evolution, and not in fact at two related populations.
Formal verification mathematically proves code implements a specification. It does not catch bugs that are specified.
There are entire classes of bugs (logic bugs) that LLMs can find that formal verification literally doesn't even try to.
So you prompt the LLM to "find all the bugs".
Even if the LLM can find every last bug (which in turn assumes that this type of problem isn't NP-hard or has some issue that Godel would point out), just defining to the LLM exactly what a "bug" is seems to be pretty much the same thing as those formal specifications that you just convincingly dismissed as inadequate.
I don't think that there's anything magical about LLMs that would let them get around fundamental mathematical roadblocks.
Brain off-line, please wait.