Exactly. That's how we know AI is just hype and will not last, the same way that happened with online commerce!

You are going to go a long way in your quest to understand and have a clue about AI, because you've got a long way to go.

How do they do in the cold? As in below 0 F? If you can manage the temperatures just by opening or closing louvers to control natural convection it will work well residentially. The weight really doesn't matter if it only moves for installation and a changeout once a decade after.

Maybe it's the onset of middle age taking over from knee-jerk skepticism talking, but at this point I firmly disbelieve in total any PR materials invoking any hot topic in the news, lefty news, righty news, and nominally straight news alike.

Remote control and monitoring. Multiple wells miles apart, multiple storage tanks on various hills, an office, plus the on-call operator who can check in from home and Management too.

The system I'm on uses radio links from tank to pumps, and a cellular connection to the water board and operators. There is a clear line of sight from the tank on the hill to the pumps down slope but in other systems that is not the case.

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.

The problem isn't that they are connected to the Internet. The problem is that they are not *securely* connected. I'm no more of an expert on their particular use cases than you are, but it is reasonable to assume that they have them. Banks are connected to the net and online sales has been a thing for a long time. It can be done safely, just not by people who lack the expertise to do it. This isn't what happens when you connect systems to the Internet, it is what happens when people who aren't qualified to do it are the ones doing it.

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.)"

I guess that rules surgical robots right out.