I see nothing in your link about communism.

They're overrated. Sitting at the airport eating mediocre "free" food and reading newspapers? Then walking a long distance to the terminal before the flight leaves...

Unless the airport lounge is right next to your terminal, or unless you really REALLY like being told you are special, credit card lounges are overrated.

Does it have bluetooth?

Bringing the cost down is also an engineering problem. NASA and the ESA both said reusable rockets weren't economical even though they already knew it was possible. The ESA even famously poo-poo'd the idea, exactly like you guys are doing here. I personally don't know whether this will work. If somebody -- anybody -- has an idea for how they can make it work, then unlike you and apparently most others on slashdot, I'm not going to try to stop it, nor do I see any good reason for that.

Besides, I'm not seeing the argument for fraud, which is what GP asserted, and is what I responded to. If you disagree, then who is defrauding whom? Perusing an idea that ultimately doesn't work isn't fraud, it's just business. Most ideas don't work, which is why so many businesses fail. That's why investing carries risk.

You really, really aren't.

It would have been shorter to just say, "I love Anthropic and will always defend them."

I'm going to assume the adage about medication manufacturing applies here:

The first chip costs $29,500,000,000 in R&D and capital investment. The remaining 14,999,999 cost $30 each. And then you keep making them at that rate at the lower price.

Serious response to a jokey question: they don't. You can buy Doritos and Pringles in pretty much any European country. They're manufactured locally with recipes tweaked to meet EU requirements and local palates. I've had both the American and the European version of both and couldn't tell the difference (though I'll admit that I'm not a snack food connoisseur).

Twinkies are trickier. I believe the only places they're commonly available are the UK and Ireland.

How does that all square with the petitioner's finding that PFAS were found in a number of food products, including "extremely high" levels in some milk brands, which presumably weren't first scalded in a consumer's non-stick skillet?

Tokenizing might be a problem for some neural networks, but more generally they fail at the balanced parenthesis problem (scroll down to the section "What Really Lets ChatGPT Work?" and scroll down to the pictures of parenthesis).

It's related to the clock problem.

If you ask a neural network to recognize "A" then all As will be tokenized the same way, so it's will be able to recognize it as well as anything else.

I can tell you are a fanboy, and not a person with a scientific background because you keep ignoring the main point:

The philosophical claim is a hypothesis that isn't supported by the evidence presented in the paper

Difficult is not impossible.

What I mean is, when you wrote this:

It's not even clear what you are trying to say.

Actually that sounds really good, you seem to have calmed down. Nice.

The next step is to be more clear in your language. LLMs clearly didn't "solve context sensitivity," but you know that (having implementing rule-based natural language grammars). However, you did seem to have an actual point, although I can't figure it out. So it would be interesting if you dug it out and expressed it a bit more clearly.

In your last comment you talk about performance, but the numbers are a little unclear here, so we would want to clarify that. Also, there is frequently a tradeoff between accuracy and performance (always with neural networks, since if the data set is small enough, you would just calculate an exact solution).

It's politer, but it's not nuanced. He clearly says there was no evidence in the paper to move him to accept the philosophical claim.

He's polite because he was hand selected by the company, but the meaning is the same: The philosophical claim is a hypothesis that isn't supported by the evidence presented in the paper. Being that is the primary claim of the paper (and title), it would therefore be rejected in peer review (or modifications requested, since the other hypotheses are supported).

I didn't cherry-pick anything. You tried to make the consumption sound like a bigger deal than it really is.

Let's see your math then -- show us how much more carbon you save by keeping them on the ground. You're the one making the assertion on this, so put up or shut up. What you're doing here, by the way -- that's handwaving.

I already made it abundantly clear that it's not. Regardless, the concept has already been proven.

https://www.pnnl.gov/news-medi...

Perhaps to fuel a rocket. Gee, ya think?

Actually, normal human tongues are red. The reason yours is that brownish color is because you eat a lot of ass.

I just told you, dingleberry, it's being funded by Starlink.

I didn't give any whataboutism. Putting your numbers into broader perspective isn't whataboutism, it's used purely to indicate how meaningless your argument is just by the sheer scale of it. You literally complained about the entire aggregate carbon output for the entire lifetime of this project, which pales in comparison to just one day of global methane use.

Since you're splitting hairs over trivial amounts of carbon, why not off yourself? Less carbon is less carbon.

I did make it abundantly clear that it's not a thing yet. How much more clear do you need it?

Umm...ok? If you're so certain about that, go short SpaceX and Tesla.