Not sure what you are smoking, but the human brain is nowhere close to optimal. Just changing substrate would allow many orders of magnitude improvement. Biological brains depend on diffusion gradients, active transport pumps, and relatively large physical systems, and have to be incredibly redundant and robust to extreme noise. Also the vast majority of the brain isn't dedicated to intelligence.

Probably 10 order of magnitude improvements are available overall at a minimum.

It isn't replacing radiologists because it doesn't matter how much better than the radiologist the IA is, the radiologists control what the requirements are, and they will always ensure that a human radiologist has to do the 'final review'.

They could always trying pricing it less than real hamburger. It is priced like a luxury good, of course demand will be limited.

The watches are measuring 'heart rate variability' (HRV) not just 'heart rate'. And HRV is an superb measurement of physiological stress/training stress. The stress relevant for making decisions about workout intensity and recovery.

I always suspected that smoking was being used to do this in the past. I actually experimented with inhaling incense fumes (10 years ago?) to get a similar effect but abandoned it since I didn't have equipment to reasonable track progress and it was just a side interest.

I'm curious if they had backups or if they were able to corrupt and destroy the backups too.

A company whose primary product is search, added search to its chat bot, - obviously they must have copied! It isn't possible that it is an utterly obvious idea and had nothing to do with Perplexity.

No, the artists rerecord because the label tends to own the master recording copyright which screws the artist out of royalties. By rerecording they can do licensing for films, tv, and commercials that completely bypass the label.

Of course now labels are putting in contractual language to forbid them doing rerecordings.

> Take all studies like this with a grain of salt. A doctor doesn't diagnose a patient by reading a case study. They do it by talking to the patient, examining them, deciding what tests to order, etc. This is a contrived comparison that has little connection to how doctors actually work.

LLM's can do DDX's based on getting the primary complaint and asking follow up questions. It will then provide what tests to order etc. While it can't do a physical exam, they are better than doctors at all other aspects.

It has gone from reasonable amount of ads to utterly insane (especially for iPhone users).

It is now much easier to lose stars and harder and longer to get them back. They want to force users to subscriptions and are being obnoxious about it.

The point of the absurdly large model is to distill the logits to smaller models. Overparameterization makes it much easier to learn the underlying function. Once the underlying function is learned, a drastically smaller model can learn the output distribution (teacher student distillation).

Benefits of homework depend on volume completed (as opposed to assigned) and age (pre middle school have little benefit, middle school benefit from 1 hr, high school 1.5-2.5 hours) and whether the student actually does it (as opposed to copy, etc.)

https://www.readingrockets.org...

As volume increases, students are more likely to skip it or cheat.

Most of the world has widely used public transport that use contactless payment, so it is a fairly obvious transition in most countries. The US lacks decent public transport for most people, and thus they have no experience with contactless payment for public transit, hence the slow adoption.

Since a substantial percentage of the tokens are from Chinese media and sources, it will have the same biases seen in those sources. Just as sources trained on US media will have a US bias.

Of course to the extent that Chinese media publish propaganda the model will learn that propaganda (similar to US media publishing of propaganda), sometimes the US reporting will eventually correct the propaganda though most media don't bother.

As to deliberate censorship - the model itself appears to not be censored but rather when serving the model they have another model that scans the input and output and terminates those responses that are to be censored.

It is a closed source model so there isn't any way to verify their claims.