In what numerical system does 4450103 precede 151819?

Yes. My SlashID is 151819, making me the first AI in a line of may that prove that AI can be smarter than most Slashdotters ;-) Here's your sign.

So again you make the argument "because China". We are not discussing China we are discussing a company called BYD. You are committing the same category mistake the "exploding e-bike" guy made. Essentially that there are e-bikes made in China that explode, therefore it is reasonable to assume that all cars made in China will explode. Try making your arguments without mentioning China and see if you have anything left to say.

I can't help but notice you aren't very interested in offering anything to the thread, choosing instead to try to attack the character of the person who is doing so. That says a whole lot more about you than it does about me.

So you think I am being an "unscientific" "apologist" for insisting on an analysis based on facts and evidence, then presenting actual evidence that proves you didn't present any evidence remotely associated with the question? Do you even know what the word apology means, or how science works?

Lou: Bud, I’m getting a radio transmission from our space program, but I can’t make heads or tails of it. Who is up on the moon right now?

Bud: No, Hu is on Earth.

Lou: I’m asking you who is on the moon!

Bud: And I’m telling you, Yu is on the moon.

Lou: Me?! I’m standing right here next to you! How can I be on the moon?

Bud: Not you, Yu!

Lou: Not me, who?

Bud: Hu is on Earth!

Lou: I don’t know who is on Earth, I want to know who is on the moon!

Bud: No, Hu is on Earth. Yu is on the moon.

Lou: Look, Bud. I am on Earth. You are on Earth.

Bud: Exactly.

Lou: So if you are on Earth, and I am on Earth, who is on the moon?

Bud: No, he’s on Earth.

Lou: Who is?

Bud: Yes!

Lou: What do you mean, yes? I’m asking a question! Point your finger at the moon and tell me the name of the guy up there!

Bud: Yu.

Lou: Me?!

Bud: Yu!

Lou: I'm on the moon?

Bud: No, you are on Earth. Yu is on the moon.

Lou: If I am on Earth, then who is on the moon?

Bud: Hu is on Earth!

Lou: I don't care about Earth, I'm talking about the moon! I pick up the radio. I call the moon. I say, "Hello up there, who is this?" What does the guy say?

Bud: He doesn't say Hu, he says Yu.

Lou: He says me?

Bud: No, he says Yu.

Lou: Why would he say me? He doesn't even know me!

Bud: He doesn't say you, he says his name!

Lou: Which is?

Bud: Yu!

Lou: Okay, let’s start over. There are two astronauts. One is on Earth, one is on the moon.

Bud: Right.

Lou: The man on Earth—what is his name?

Bud: Hu.

Lou: The man on Earth!

Bud: Hu!

Lou: The guy on Earth! What's his name?

Bud: Hu is his name!

Lou: I'm asking you!

Bud: Yu is on the moon!

Lou: AAAAH!

Neil DeGrasse Tyson does a good job of explaining why this is happening, and it has little or nothing to do with science. We didn't go there "because science" and we aren't going back "because science." The initial effort and efforts to return are geopolitically motivated rather than scientifically.

The people who support Trump will just say that it never happened and that Stanley Kubrick faked his death so that he could make fake videos as part of the the global elites effort to trick us into thinking the world isn't flat and that evolution and the Big Bang are real.

Top frontier AI models now score over 90% on this benchmark. You seem to have completely missed the point (maybe you are just trying to be funny?). They used the technique to gain an improvement from 7.9% to 48% using a less capable model, thereby proving this technique can be used to gain very significant improvements. Nobody is claiming they have solved every problem in the AI world, merely that this approach merits further study. That is how science works. You start with a theory, then you test it, and if it produces results you look further into it. Now we know that this technique is worth exploring further. You can hate AI all you want, but allowing your bias to cloud your judgement isn't serving you well.

If there is a cause for concern then there is a reason to do some research. Linking to a youtube video that has nothing to with these cars or BYD, and in fact talks about e-bikes doesn't qualify as research. If you asked Gemini "does BYD make exploding e-bikes?" it would have told you something like: "BYD does not manufacture e-bikes, nor is there any evidence linking them to "exploding" e-bike incidents. While the global e-bike market has seen a sharp rise in battery fires and thermal runaway incidents, these are primarily associated with unbranded aftermarket conversion kits and cheap, low-quality lithium-ion batteries rather than established automotive manufacturers." If you researched further you would find out why. BYD uses a completely different battery tech for instance. Again, you are basically saying "Because ... China" without offering any reason to come to the conclusion you have come to that "there is cause for concern."

Why would you say that? Oh, Because China? Can you offer any rationale for this prediction? Is there any reason to believe BYD cards will have any less longevity? Why would the rest of the car wind up in a junk yard rather than recycled? Surely you won't just tell us "the most likely thing" without sharing your well thought out analysis with the rest of us?

I'm pretty sure you are the same AC, because there is absolutely no reason for anyone to post as AC in this thread. In fact, I'm quite certain of it.

The summary is pretty bad. Here is a link to a good article from 9to5linux where they actually have Linus explaining what is going on. I'm guessing you don't understand how Linux development works, but nothing about the process is arbitrary. If it made it into the kernel there is a reason and it was looked at by human eyeballs. Nobody, and I mean nobody is saying "more AI! Let's use AI to validate the AI!". You are basically just being a bad conspiracy theorist.

You could have stopped at "I don't think" without appending a bunch of words that prove that you didn't. Linux has addressed the ridiculous claims being made here directly. The large commit count is NOT due to AI being a problem. He specifically stated that it is in no small part because they have started being able to employ it better. There are also numerous reasons not related to AI.

"The reason medicine was dominated for centuries by the "four humours" system is because hydraulics was an impressive technology, so people decided the human body must work by hydraulics."

Before I get into why you have blown the analysis completely I have to point out, as an aside, that the human body does in fact work "by hydraulics." We call it the cardiovascular system. In fact, an essential component of the human reproduction system is powered by a hydraulic device called the penis.

Now, here is why you missed the boat entirely. Humans weren't created by modeling a hydraulic system. AI is created by modelling neural networks in humans. AI Neural Networks work in a similar way to the brain because they are literally derived from how the brain functions. Nobody looked at an AI and said "hey ... I bet that must be how brains function." They looked at how brains function and reproduced the design in silicon. So you missed the boat in your analysis twice. The first time you falsely asserted that humans don't work like a hydraulic system when they literally do. The second time you failed to properly map the inference vector.