There are swift compilers for Windows and Linux, and you can write Android apps in it.

AlphaFold would absolutely have been "called AI" ten years ago.

What's confusing you and the OP is the popular use of the term "AI" to refer to a specific set of language-trained models. This is because humans have difficulty holding more than one concept in their brain at the same time and are also exceptionally susceptible to tech bros trying to sell them shit.

More importantly we have hundreds of humans and plenty of animals edited with CRISPR and they haven't died or shown signs of cancer.

The vast majority (all?) of those have been editing cells that are removed, then reinjected. One of the benefits of that is you can discard any suspicious ones.

and they haven't died

Oh yes, people have died.

we won't be at a level to skip vivo studies until around the same time as we can make "Real" Human equivalent AI.

The latter is probably considerably easier than the former. We know that "real human equivalent [A]I" can be created. There are ten billion examples walking around. We don't have an example of an oracle machine that can tell you what a drug is going to do when you put it into one of them.

We also have reasonable bounds on the amount of computation that goes into making one of those "real human" intelligences, and they're achievable. There are good reasons to think that figuring out all the interactions that make up a complex biological system is practically uncomputable.

That's a nice story, but it's not true. Humans all make variations on the "standard" set of human proteins. Sometimes not important variations, sometimes very important. Proteins aren't one and done either; they're reused all over the place, in different ways. You can target the such and such a receptor on such and such a cell and your drug is going to have off target effects because that same receptor is used in a dozen other cell types to do two dozen other things.

Not to mention drugs don't stay the same in an actual biological system. They get broken down, built up, transformed, internalized, etc. Not to mention a bazillion other things half of which we don't even know about yet.

Ah, when in doubt jump to the racist conspiracy theory.

They didn't send the black boxes to Boeing because you don't do that. They didn't send them to the US transportation safety agency because they don't have anything to do with this, and India's equivalent just built a brand new lab for this exact thing.

There haven't been any airworthiness directives because they didn't find a smoking gun pointing to some obvious design issue. It's always pretty unlikely that would happen. The black boxes aren't oracles, they record flight information and what's being said in the cockpit.

They all have jobs?

That's some top tier reasoning there. You start with the assumption that they can't reason and then toss around insults.

You used to at least honestly state your beliefs. I think I told you once that I disagreed with you, but respected that you were willing to say outright you believed in the non-physical. What happened? Is it the god of the gaps thing? Gaps getting smaller, pressing in, tighter and tighter....

Strauss was definitely right about air travel. We travel so easily through the air that we don't bother much with passenger travel by sea anymore, except for some short ferries and pleasure cruises.

He was probably off by a bit with lifespan. American life expectancy at birth has gone up about ten years since the 50s, and the US is a bit of a laggard in that department, but most of it is due to fewer dead babies. Both life expectancy at older ages and healthy life expectancy have gone up, but maybe not dramatically enough to justify "far longer." We are figuring out what causes us to age though, so he might well be right in the next 75 years.

"They" was Lewis Strauss, the chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission in a speech. Here's the full quote:

It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.

There's an option for flat rate residential electricity here, mostly provided by hydro and nukes. That's maybe not quite the same thing as he was talking about, but maybe it was.

We also travel pretty effortlessly through the air with frankly unbelievable safety, which has made sea travel more of a recreational thing. We haven't gotten to "far longer" lifespans yet, but US life expectancy is up more than a decade since he said that. Some of that is fewer dead babies but there have also been improvements in life expectancy at all ages.

Math teachers are famous for adding some random but important looking stuff to confuse students who take this "rule" too seriously. They do it because students are fooled by this too. They also do it becase being trained that "everything stated is important" is not true makes students better problem solvers.

Training these models on problems with irrelevant content will undoubtedly make them better problem solvers as well.

It's interesting how critics jump on reasoning. Humans are pretty shit at reasoning. So much so that we have painstakingly developed formal systems, complete with years of training, to make a select few acceptably good at it. Those formal systems ARE how we normally define "reasoning."

Now, formal systems are what conventional computation, not AI, is great at. And some of the reasoning AI models have access to conventional logic programs for exactly that reason. Systems that will happily reason rings around any human.

Lol. You're ridiculous. One might think you're afraid of what you are already pretty sure is the truth.

If nothing else, CO2 levels are part of "the total environment." You know what NOAA stands for right? That second last A?

It's convenient to make up your own facts, yes? NOAA's mission, as established by several congresses, is rather more than weather forecasting.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-p...

The agency’s history dates to 1807, when the Survey of the Coast—a precursor to NOAA—was established. In 1970, President Nixon created NOAA as part of a broader reorganization plan.

In its current form, NOAA’s responsibilities or functions are divided among six subagencies, or line offices: National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); National Ocean Service (NOS); National Weather Service (NWS); Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); and Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO).

In July 1970, President Richard M. Nixon sent Reorganization Plan No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the reorganization plan) to Congress.6 In the reorganization plan, President Nixon proposed the creation of NOAA to protect life and property from natural hazards, better understand the total environment, and explore and develop ways to use marine resources in a “coordinated way” within DOC.7 Most Members of the 91st Congress supported the reorganization plan.8 Under the terms of the statutory authority under which the reorganization plan was submitted, the plan went into effect on October 3, 1970.9

https://www.noaa.gov/our-missi...

NOAA's Mission: Science. Service. Stewardship.
1. To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, ocean and coasts.

2. To share that knowledge and information with others.

3. To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.

I replied to a specific post. You seem to want to make some statements that are tangentially related to what I said then, when presented with compelling counterarguments, change the subject and talk about the article?

Count me out.