Windows 11 requires 4GB to "run". In my experience, MS defines "run" as "very low values of 'run'"

But you've got to do both. Doubting oneself is "critical thinking". Doubting other sources of authority is "independent thinking".

The thing is, nobody has enough expertise to be an independent thinker in every area. So you essentially MUST delegate your ideas in some areas (variable between people) to external authorities. At which point what you "believe" depends on which authorities you choose.

A related question is "how firm is that belief?". This also tends to vary wildly with little apparent (to me) reason behind it. This is one feature that *can* be related to IQ, but isn't always.

My point is everything about that sentence could be wrong.

Again Amazon will replace ALL of their warehouse workers as soon as it is feasible. So far they have only been able to replace some of them.

The article says this: "Various sources indicate that a single Am9080 processor cost AMD only 50 cents to make (100 per wafer), yet it could sell them to military customers for $700 each." It however does not name "various sources". My best guess is the $0.50 does not include any capital costs and only certain operational costs.

Robots have been coming for decades. And Amazon is one company that will replace all their warehouse workers with robots at the first sign that is feasible. Amazon, of all companies, knows the limits of robots in automation as they have been trying to create fully automated warehouses for decades.

It's not just widespread, it's universal. What varies from person to person is the domain that they apply thinking to, and how they validate the authority they choose to trust.

Nobody is an "independent thinker" on every topic. Wherever one is an expert, one tends to be an "independent thinker" in that domain. Where you don't feel knowledgeable, you tend to accept an authoritative source...possibly after doing some amount of checking to see whether others think it reliable.

I don't think it's directly related to IQ. I also don't think it's restricted to chatbots. A lot of people are willing to accept the opinion of any authoritative source that they've accepted. Think religion or political party. Once they accept it, they stop questioning it's proclamations.

Note that this also applied to those who accept the proclamations of scientists or compilers. Once you accept an authoritative source, you pretty much stop questioning it. It's been multiple decades since I really argued with a compiler...unless it was a known bug from a source I trusted. I generally just assumed that I misunderstood what the language meant by that construct. (Of course, the few times I really didn't accept it, I eventually turned out to be wrong. Oh.)

Or worse, because it is on the Internet, it must be true. I had a friend whose entire argument that some conspiracy theory was true because multiple people posted things on websites. I countered that I could set up a website to detail how that friend murdered a homeless person one summer.

And you missed the point. You could easily verify the cases exist. AI cited cases do not exist. You could subsequently argue to the court that the cases do not support the opposition's arguments.

More than likely, the cost of any alternative is now cost prohibitive as AI is buying out those as well.

To what are you alluding?

You would be surprised. Again Micron is making high bandwidth memory for AI instead of consumer DRAM. They have already announced this.

Again you would be surprised by the lack of logistics for some of these data centers. And no one is not saying it does not require that level of planning. What we are saying is some of these data centers are being built on hopes and dreams as the foundation.

Did you? The first assumption is paralegals were fired. How about the assertion that having or not having a paralegal makes no difference if the lawyer does no verification of something the lawyer is submitting to a court. Regardless of who wrote the filing, the lawyer submitting the filing is responsible for the contents.