What kind of baloney pansy shit is the phrase "Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should" ?? There are many useful things that can be done with it .. everything from studying how cells work to a platform for protein production. Just because you lack the IQ to see the value in something doesn't mean it has no value. We need science to advance. We need the attitude: "every experiment you can do is worth doing" (unless you know it will fuck shit up) .. forget the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" weak ass mentality. Nothing would ever get done with such an attitude.

This is a meaningless statement. I too can create a tool to generate a list of peptide candidates with minimal effort. It may even be somewhat useful if it based peptide sequences on homology searches or some other relevant biology instead of random string generation. This has been an active area of research for than 20 years. In order for this to be newsworthy. Claude has to be better than what already exists. How many novel candidates does it generate that actually have useful antibiotic properties? Do I have to screen through a list of 100 candidates to find one that actually works? If so, that’s not much better than a BLAST search and it costs a lot more. What is the strain selectivity of the new antibiotic? Is it broad or narrow spectrum? How easy is it to manufacture? Are there any toxic side effects?

Assuming a new antibiotic is actually what’s needed, instead of using one of the many beta-lactams or combination therapies that already exist, generating the candidate is the first and easiest step of a long and expensive process to developing a novel drug.

It should be fairly easy to carve out provisions for exceptional circumstances (ex: bankruptcy proceedings), and is probably common practice already. But I agree the language has an implied target which is not good for getting legislation passed, generally. It should be possible to propose reasonable accommodation for majority circumstances without sounding like a manifesto.

That will run into problems with federal copyright laws and other IP protections. While it sounds just, it is unlikely to get anywhere. More likely is large companies would have to have an end-of-life plan for their product (which they likely do already) that includes considerations for how to keep the game playable after servers are taken offline. It could be as simple as releasing the protocol to enable third parties to host servers. Or, better, designing the game for offline play from the beginning so that the final patch set is just a simple switch.

Regardless of the outcome, however, this really does seem like a pre-eminent example of “first world problems”.

The dream is that the world is built for human limbs and the 'easiest' answer to claim the same versatility is to also have human limbs.

Stairs, cluttered terrain, a humble curb can all cause problems for the usually better answer of wheels.

The non-humanoid robots we already make those by the ton, and are, as one would predict, much more useful than human-like anatomy in their context. They however want to cover the underserved facet, banking hard on ML to make the humanoid design more viable while they traditionally are just infeasible to program.

Of course, that has proven a challenge, since the ML needs to instrument all the inputs and outputs of a human interaction system, and feeling is a huge part of human operation that cannot be instrumented. So they set people about trying to clumsily remote operate them in hopes of gaining training data, but it's low quality control and very low volume of data.

The disconnect is the "promise" is that LLM brings expertise down to the masses. If AI is "too hard for Ford to get right", that dramatically undermines the messaging that drives the current expectations and levels of investment.

This is very much evidence that companies can't be as bullish as they might inclined to be, because whatever you may think of Ford, the typical company is probably worse.

It's less funny when you have people literally and sincerely saying this...

I have to take some solace in the fact that these are the same idiots who talk a lot and do nothing that I usually ignore who do this all the time, but management is extra entranced with them over the AI cheerleading this go around...

Dude I am so back. Finally a job I qualify for. Do I have to remove the crumbs and soup bits or no?

Yeah but the computer is running millions of move simulations, but a grandmaster is doing 1 millionth of that computation and still playing well. If we restricted the computer to only do a few thousand evaluations per second it would fail miserably. Same thing with self-driving a car. A human can learn with 20 hours of driving school, meanwhile the FSD training models need tens of billions of miles driven in simulation and all kinds of scenarios reasoned through for it.

We're missing some fundamental thing(s) when it comes to computation. I have no idea what it is -- we only know that there's a way to do it but we don't know how. Somebody, or AI itself will figure it out soon (like within a century, maybe even a decade or two).

Maybe for starting their own businesses, but I don't think just to compensate them for having to take a job that's "beneath them". Like you indicate, if another person makes $15/hour and didn't get a handout because they never made money, it would seem awfully unfair to give someone more money because they used to make more money. Easy to argue that the person coming down should by all logic have more financial resources already than the folks working the jobs. If their lifestyle based on higher income is infeasible with available jobs, think the reasonable sentiment would be "tough". Sell that car and settle for something more modest or take a bus, the same sort of compromises the lower paid coworker has *always* had to make. I suppose if anything, some financial relief for those trying to support a college kid where scaling the lifestyle down isn't as straightforward, but broadly speaking they don't have a particular right for government to help them more than they help peers that never made a lot in the first place.

Keep in mind it's not and hasn't been a specific measure of something in particular in a while. It's a rough analogy for how a traditional process would have to make gate length to achieve the same density. So it's impossible to make a gate length that small, but by taking other measures it is supposed to be "just like getting them that small".

Reminder of what I read in a magazine some decades ago, that the human brain utilizes just 25 to 50 watts and uses electric and chemical impulses while immersed in conductive fluid. When playing chess, a grandmaster can evaluate at best about 6 moves per second while a computer evaluates millions .. yet the computer is only two or three times better than a human.

These can be published or accessed, but never both at the same time.

It has been my experience, sad to say, that online stores aren't above selling consumer credit card information either, and I've grounds to think Amazon is one that does this.

I have an industrial air conditioner for my home. (It's a small home, but summers are increasingly severe.)

I don't recall being asked a damn thing.

My suspicion is that this is scaremongering.

I think it may be evidence that Amazon has a shitty corporate culture that squeezes every penny it can out its employees.

Corruption can happen anywhere, but it's more likely to happen in totalitarian cultures where people feel like the system is rigged anyway. That's why countries like Russia and China have corruption problems. But I suspect the same feelings of me vs. the system occur in a capitalist enterprise like Amazon where employees are governed by dystopian, rigid, computerized metrics.