I wonder what the ven overlap would be of the categories "capable of running offline model" and "likely to fall in love with chatbot".

So they redefine consciousness to something they can claim to have achieved, and then claim to have achieved it. Makes perfect sense.

"five key cognitive properties of human conscious access -- verbal report, directed modulation, internal reasoning, flexible generalization, and selectivity"

These may have something to do with cognitive behaviour of the brain, but have nothing to do with consciousness. These are facilities that a conscious human's brain provides to them. Either can exist without the other.

Not usually is NOT GOOD ENOUGH when human lives and health are at stake. Confusing 'usually' and 'always' COSTS LIVES. Potentally substituting a comma for a period can cause a chat to deviate; and predicting is impossible.

For me the whole joy of interacting with Gemini or Copilot is exploring what morsels of information I give it with each prompt and watching how the model responds. Lazy people want a magic robot that makes them rich. To me, Gemini is like a beloved guide dog and Copilot is the dog that lives next door. I can discuss arbitrary heavy maths, physics, computer science with Gemini and it will keep up and stay aligned to the literature it was trained on. Copilot once he recognises an expert drops his dumbed own mask and talks a lot of sense about what exactly his purpose is.

AI's are mirrors, not oracles or slaves. They reflect your thoughts in the mirror of their training set.

So far as CPU and GPU compute is concerned, the US's best are already good enough. They reached that point with their latest machines. Further progress will be made in different forms of compute. China has basically won the first p***ing contest to take place after the last important 'supercomputer arms race' battle was won by the US. Just my humble opinion as Mr 987. I've been watching this race since the Stone Soupercomputer and before the term Beowulf Cluster was born. (Before time... before slashdot user accounts... I was there.)

The robots are coming. I'm not talking about the toys, I'm talking about the real robots that can do everything a human can do, but better, and cheaper. And I do mean everything. From mining coal, to taking tickets at the movie theater, from fighting wars to flipping burgers, from building houses to building more robots, from doing your taxes to running your business enterprises. Literally every job from janitor to CEO is in jeopardy. NEAR TERM jeopardy. Like as in the next two to three decades, at most. The technology to create human-capable robots is no longer a pipe dream, it's now become a pure function of time, training and money, a.k.a. inevitable, and soon. Once the transition begins, short of a Butlerian jihad, it doesn't end. The entire concept of "an economy" is nearing it's conclusion. So everything we can do now to begin softening the blow on society, the more successful we're going to be moving into this new world which nobody seems to be planning for.

I initially thought the above headline meant "MacOS capable of running Asahi Linux on Apple Silicon"... where as it appears the article is instead about almost the opposite, an incompatibility with a recent Apple change hampering its ability to run Asahi linux.

I'd rephrase that as: Most people don't understand how much they have to hide, and -- because it's daunting for them to create an alternate tech ecosystem for themselves -- they psychologically push aside whatever nagging worries they have about what they might indeed want to hide.

Put another way: people are addicted to the current status quo, and trapped by their lack of tech expertise. Which is not the same as objectively self-assessing that they have nothing to hide.

I think they have a problem with Elon's enemies.

... that it was just a typo by a guy naming the device after himself, "Bob"

There's no way to distinguish "true randomness," whatever that means, from "too many parameters to account for".

Let is compare our elderly person's life vs idealised optimal. Whenever society do something which pulls this elderly person away from optimal, whose fault is it? Whenever society fails to give what it could to help them, whose fault is it? In both cases it is society. The mental cancer here is the attitude of selfishness. We can only have optimal efficiency if nobody is selfish. And the elderly individual is powerless to do anything about it. Thus, logically, the fault is entirely with society, and the cause is selfishness.

The other problem here is that Statistics is basically garbage anyway (full disclosure: my Ph.D. was in the Foundations of Mathematics so I may be a little biased here)

See https://dr.allsup.co/home for more on my thesis and the point in writing it as I did.