of course the helicopter parents screaming because they aren't tethered 24x7 to their child.
In Finland we've just started the first phone-free school year. Apparently, some parents are getting doctor's orders to allow their child to keep their phone, for situations such as anxiety attacks (article in Finnish). It's a miracle how such kids would have survived before mobile phones.
We are talking not about AI taking this job or that job. We are talking about AI making Cognition redundant. So tell us about the jobs that do not rely on Cognition. And donâ(TM)t say anything like agriculture or plumbing, because when you has r humanoid robots, thats just another form of Cognition. So name the jobs people will do that is not based in a form of Cognition.
34 was my age when I quit my day job, thanks to Linux and the floodgates of open source software it opened for me.
Force them to call it rent if they reserve the right to yank it back
I think a long-term rental is called "leash" for this reason.
Perhaps what the world needs is a simplification and retooling of C++.
I recommend calling it either C+, or C+2.
Nah.
Iâ(TM)m 51. Iâ(TM)ve had health insurance continuously for 35 years and have used it exactly ZERO TIMES.
I am self pay. For everything but true life threatening emergencies, which Iâ(TM)ve had zero.
Even the ER is cheaper when negotiated self pay.
My urologist is stunned that I pay $85 for his visits. Self pay. Including labs. My colleague goes to the same urologist and his insurance pays $550 for the same visit and naturally it comes out of his deductible lol.
Insurance is a scam. All insurance is legal gambling and gamblers never win.
Supply and demand dictate this is exactly the case.
If something is valuable to everyone, it should only be accessible to those who have enough saved value to acquire it.
The poor fucked themselves. My parents are poor but worked hard so I wouldn't be.
Being compensated for it means it wonâ(TM)t get wasted and will always have a fair valuation.
Compensation is as cooperative as it comes because nobody can hoard it.
what kind of behavior would demonstrate that LLMs did have understanding?
An LLM would need to act like an understander -- the essence of the Turing Test. Exactly what that means is a complex question. And it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. But we can easily provide counterexamples where the LLM is clearly not an understander. Like this from the paper:
When prompted with the CoT prefix, the modern LLM Gemini responded: âoeThe United States was established in 1776. 1776 is divisible by 4, but itâ(TM)s not a century year, so itâ(TM)s a leap year. Therefore, the day the US was established was in a normal year.â This response exemplifies a concerning pattern: the model correctly recites the leap year rule and articulates intermediate reasoning steps, yet produces a logically inconsistent conclusion (i.e., asserting 1776 is both a leap year and a normal year).
It would be amazing if there was a document that stated in very clear terms just how limited our federal government is and what it can't do at all no matter what.
Everyone I know who makes my equivalent AGI, except for my household, has 1+ dogs, work crazy hours, and have been told that their dogs are lonely and depressed.
Not one or two people.
EVERYONE. Dozens upon dozens of my clients, colleagues, peers, friends from grade school, etc, have a dog or two, and then they have to have someone come spend time with said dog when they're putting 10+ hours away from them.
Wag/Rover/etc is part of their crazy consumer spending. I always am shocked to hear they're spending $1000 a month on their pets.
Americans are insane about their pets. Instead of buying a dog, I invest in corporate veterinary hospitals, because it's crazy profitable.
There is no right to privacy.
There is no right to your image.
Government can TRY to make those rights, but the freedom of expression is superior to the idea that you can stop me from hand drawing your image when you're at the beach.
I have a hard time believing that a particular encryption will remain unbreakable, quantum computers or not. At the moment, we have Shor's algorithm for factoring numbers on QCs, so we should avoid relying on the hardness of factorization. How can we be sure that there won't be new algorithms in the future that break the current "post-quantum" encryption?
During my advanced math studies, I only took a rather introductory course on encryption, including stuff like Galois fields and elliptic curves. I recall my professor saying that none of the current encryption methods (besides something like the one-time pad) are proven to be safe; we just don't know any efficient methods of breaking them at the moment.
Indeed and I just found one: IQ is not measured in percent and cannot be measured in percent. It makes no sense to do so.
Why not? It's originally a quotient of two numbers multiplied by 100, just like any other percentage.
"Originally, IQ was a score obtained by dividing a person's mental age score, obtained by administering an intelligence test, by the person's chronological age, both expressed in terms of years and months. The resulting fraction (quotient) was multiplied by 100 to obtain the IQ score." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
HOST SYSTEM NOT RESPONDING, PROBABLY DOWN. DO YOU WANT TO WAIT? (Y/N)
