Is that better or worse? I was under the impression that most people find the catching of a rocket booster like SpaceX does with those little arms to be more awesome than just landing the booster.

I also thought that outside of having to land on Mars it is the preferred approach because it is more efficient.

Finally: Caught it in a net conjures up the wrong image. If you look at the video the 'net' is much more like the mechazilla arms and not some fishing net they plop the booster into: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Otherwise: go ahead and tell me what evidence is required for a philosophical claim like this. You act as if you know.

Do you know how philosophy works?

Bullshit.

"I won't express a strong opinion on the philosophical claim - I do not feel qualified to assess whether this is really analogous to a global workspace"
and
"I feel highly uncertain about what evidence it would take to show models have moral significance or consciousness"

Just admit that you're conjuring something out of nowhere and pretending that somebody agrees with you even though they clearly don't. Otherwise: go ahead and tell me what evidence is required for a philosophical claim like this. You act as if you know.

Furthermore, all of this is completely besides the point that this research has been replicated, which renders this other line of yours false:

You desperately wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. If you're going to quote the commentary, do it right:

"I won't express a strong opinion on the philosophical claim - I do not feel qualified to
assess whether this is really analogous to a global workspace, and this feels like the
least interesting claim to me. There is clearly something significant J-Space is finding
inside models, and this is advancing our understanding of them and ability to make them
safer, which is the important part, whether or not it is analogous to a global workspace.
  This hypothesis did seem to make useful predictions about the technique's
properties, but it's easy to read too much into post-hoc analysis of results like
this.
  I feel highly uncertain about what evidence it would take to show models have
moral significance or consciousness, and this paper didn't move me much on that."

A far more interesting and nuanced take than your naked dismissive statement.

Except the concept of "working memory" is very much agreed upon, with various empirical results showing its properties and limits robustly. Similarly for the distinction between conscious and subconscious processing.

As a GP said: RTFA instead of whoring for karma.

They requested external commentary, which includes reproduction by Neel Nanda: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/...

"Replication
We created our J-Lens for Qwen 3.6 27B by taking Jacobians to the penultimate layer on
twenty-five prompts from the Pile of length 128 tokens (some experiments used wikitext),
skipping the first four tokens as they had high norm. We note that as this is a different and
weaker model some results should differ. The important question is whether we see broadly
similar phenomena."

In general, this is very significant progress in understanding and measuring what happens inside these models. Linking the J-space to consciousness is tenuous, but you are definitely being too dismissive of it.

The best approach is to ensure that your child makes the right choices and doesn't _want_ to buy those things. Using their brain to exert self-control is incredibly valuable and transfers to many of these issues. It requires being even more disciplined as a parent, though.

An area where we see this is in food intake: no legal age restrictions and good parents spend lots and lots of effort from a very very young age to imbue their kids with healthy eating habits. And it works, even for highly attractive sugary food. The kids of bad/lazy parents are not so lucky, though. They develop a very unhealthy relationship with food.

Social media is very similar, but most parents spend way too little time in training their kids and preparing them for life on/with social media.

I stand corrected: Most American beer (in volume available/consumed) is absolute dogwater. I'm sure some of the microbreweries produce great beers.

Don't forget: American beer is fucking close to water.

That country has been have been going backwards for quite a while, so it was only a matter of time.

The weird thing about this is that they're doing it for a device class that isn't exactly popular yet. Normally they would start off super consumer friendly, and then only when enough people feel like they can't live without the device/service start fucking them lubefree in the ass with schemes like these.

You're hallucinating. I didn't link shit. TFS did:

"The forecast was recorded in 2014 as part of a campaign coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that invited about 60 presenters worldwide to imagine a weather report from the year 2050. In one clip [...]"

Just go back to sucking Greta's clit whilst pretending to care about science. You've wasted enough of my time.

No, you're the cunt. What a lovely level of discourse you've dragged us down to.

You stated that Michael Bay movies aren't poorly written.
It shows why you're the problem: Because you are hellbent on refusing the notion that some movies and games are mostly created to increase representation etc. and that the writing takes a back seat to that, you paint yourself into the corner of defending the writing of Michael Bay movies. Look up 'opportunity cost'. Explain _why_ movies like Shehulk or the female version of Ghostbusters were made.

You stated that Hollywood has always been 'woke', yet older movies and other media nowadays sometimes come with trigger warnings for being offensive or have the 'offensive' stuff removed altogether. Putting the handful of 'woke' movies from back then on the same level as the ubiquitous presence of it in the most visible franchises nowadays as a result of a very explicit push to change things in a certain way (Kathleen Kennedy and "The force is female", anyone?) is just being willfully ignorant. There are plenty initiatives to promote "the message" and very often they don't give a fuck about the thing it is injected in. That thing is merely a convenient/popular vehicle for the message (even if it is sometimes also just companies thinking they can make money riding the zeitgeist) and thus is treated as secondary: keeping the universe sensible doesn't matter.

What you fail to understand is that your absolutist neopuritannical stance is for a significant part responsible for people not wanting to vote for leftwing parties anymore (besides the normal shitload of xenophobia and selfishness). The only response to reasonably made points about very mild grievances is to immediately call the people making them dumb, cunts, racist, misogynist, etc. and dismiss anything they have to say with increasingly nonsensical arguments. I hate seeing people from what I consider to be 'my side' act like this and help create an environment where actual cunts like Trump and Farage come onto power.

You mean the point the video itself makes? You know, the first thing that I quoted? "Because we have already seen these temperatures before."

Why can't people argue the fucking point anymore, jesus. It just immediately goes into kneejerk tribal bullshit spewing. I'm not ypur fucking enemy. I haven't gotten a single sensible response that engaged with my very neutrally stated point.

Then also do not respond to a comment that explicitly makes a point about a video, you dumb fuck.