This one goes to eleven, you impotent numbskull.

Sweet! I've also wanted Compiz to work well on Linux. Looks like it's shaping up to be a great distro.

It would be cool to see a 3D file browser, too.

Your post is an extreme example of Dunning–Kruger. Just because you know how to type doesn't mean you understand economics.

The market doesn't optimize for profit in the short term or in the long term.

In economics, there are two curves: a supply curve, and a demand curve. In a free market, they meet at equilibrium.

It's not about the USA. It is not about Trump. It is not about you. Try to not make every single situation America-centric, you self-centered twat.

A minority in Japan really really wants nuclear weapons. The majority doesn't. By "leaving the door open" she is able to appease the minority while not being rejected by the majority. Japanese politics is full of double-speak of this type. If you turned off your American-centric worldview, you might know this. Again: not everything is about you.

This is worth repeating. In addition, Google pushed people hard to install Chrome by nagging you every time you visited one of their websites.

I didn't realize it was so heavy.

I was going to say this is way too general, and AI involves many algorithms that are not LLMs.

Then I started thinking through the algorithms of the past, and many of them have indeed shown great promise in the beginning, then exponentially-increasing requirements.

Because of bureaucracy. Individuals all up and down the hierarchy are trying to meet arbitrary metrics set by someone who doesn't understand the situation. The ones who meet the metrics get promoted, even if the metrics make no sense.

Of course, there are smart scientists in China who try to do good research, but as is true everywhere, bureaucracy is a hindrance.

That is too optimistic on the listening.

A lot of people out there only heard "stay six feet away from people" and logicked, "What, a disease can only travel six feet then it drops dead?" No scientist said anything remotely close to that, but that is the reasoning people ended up with because they weren't listening at all.

I was thinking about the biotech, and creating a disease that will kill a bunch of people is easy enough that it will almost certainly happen.

On the other hand, creating a disease that will kill all humans is not easy. It's actually quite difficult. Which doesn't make you feel better if you run into a disease that kills you, but unselfishly I guess we should feel good about humanity?

I didn't see anything in that paper about the last universal common ancestor.

And this study is more about redefining life rather than producing any new information. Not very exciting in science terms.

It's hard to think of any laws that current LLMs actually follow.

The only one I've come up with so far is, "Respond if and only if the user gives you a command (prompt.)"

The citations for that statement on Wikipedia are all from 2021 or 2020, and are likely out of date.