The high quality sightings tend to be released fairly quickly:

https://science.nasa.gov/galle...

Oh, but these are *preventative* wars.

Don't be silly. They're not wars at all. Wars cannot be started by a single man in the United States with its sophisticated 18th century system of checks and balances. In fact, the US has not engaged in a war since the glorious 1942-1945 campaign against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania.

These are special military operations neccessary for the de-militarization and de-Nazification of Ukrai..., no sorry, police actions under the aegis of the United Natio..., whoops, sorry again.

Okay, notes straightened out, they're actually a special authorization for the use of military force against those responsible for the terrorist attacks of 2001. Or possibly a special AUMF against Iraq due to its continued possession of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, acts of brutality against its own population and an attempt to assassinate President HW Bush. Or both.

That's true, but Starship seems to have demonstrated that completely successfully. The explosion at the end was entirely planned.

Everything seems to have gone exactly as planned except for the engine failures. In fact, Starship demonstrated it's excellent engine out capability, landing exactly on target despite missing one from almost the beginning.

Engine reliability is something SpaceX has had problems with every new generation of Raptor, but they've solved it twice now so fixing it a third time doesn't seem too unlikely.

There is, actually, although what exactly you mean can vary. The first amendment to Canada's constitution, then called the British North America Act was the Rupert's Land Act.

I didn't say I believe anything. I commented that belief, particularly the specific one you expressed, has been a shitty way of making decisions about new technology.

In fact, I think AI has already been a net positive for humanity and will likely be a very big positive if we get it working the way some people think we will, just like previous forms of automation. Many of the things you take for granted are AI, and you probably don't even realize.

The industrial revolution caused a lot of social upheval, including all the hand wringing (and more) that's going on today. Including the very same statement that you made. It would be nice to skip most of that this time around, we'll see whether we've learned anything. But the outcome was vast improvements for humanity in pretty much every way, including most of the worker rights and social benefits that you, even if you are an American, enjoy today.

Nah, I am talking about Monte Carlo Tree Search.... The breakthrough for Go was to add neural networks to MCTS to further improve the algorithm, but for chess the tree search alone is enough.

As I said, engineered chess programs (i.e. non-neural MCTS) were good, but the neural ones are unbeatable.

MCTS, neural or otherwise, is not a "self-play" strategy. It can be used that way, sure, but it doesn't have to be. It requires a policy to select tree branches to follow. That policy can be engineered heuristics or learned ones. The learned ones can be trained through previous examples (Alpha Go), self-play (Alpha Go Zero) or some other means. A proof engine could use both previous examples and randomly generated ones.

There is no automated way to assess "This proof works, but is more complicated than it needs to be".

This is irrelevant, but of course there is. If your proof engine, human or computer, can find a shorter path then original proof was more complicated than it needs to be.

It wasn't a spectrogram though. It was a picture of a spectrogram. I haven't had a chance to watch Scott Manley's video yet, but unless somebody screwed up and embedded the actual spectrogram, or maybe an unreasonably high resolution image of it, it is pretty impressive to reconstruct 30 seconds of recognizable audio from what should have been a random JPEG figure in a PDF.

The actual report uses the phrases "minimally-processed", "shop-bought processed," "ultra-processed" and "shop-bought ultra-processed" food. The actual recommendation is:

"minimising shop-bought ultra-processed foods"

Minimally-processed and ultra-processed food have a proper definitions:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...

Lots of things have been "such an obvious horror" to people. Most of the time fortunately, someone ignored them.

OMG, imitatio naturae, playing god, entrapping the soul in a machine, sorcery, etc. Some religious factions still think it's a good idea to, for example, force children to die slow agonizing deaths because they think things like insulin, blood transfusions, kidney dialysis or just seeing a physician about that lung infection are "such an obvious horror."

It's basically a $75 Raspberry Pi knockoff board with a $20 SDR radio, a plastic case and some dolphin branding that's likely to get you in trouble.

very much putting him on target to sign more EOs than Truman did nearly a century ago.

To be fair, Truman was ending a war and starting two new ones and Trump is valiantly battling uh... 51 concurrent national emergencies.

The old method of building chess players was heuristics. You have a bunch of engineers who hopefully know something about chess come up with rules about how good a position is. That's what "heuristics" are.

The thing that made chess computers better than any human and go computers better than all but the very best (or probably all by now) was using neural networks that learn their heuristics by experience. And yes, human mathematicians absolutely do learn heuristics, i.e. "gut feelings" regarding good approaches, promising mehtods, and quite often claim to be "close to a result." They also frequently come up with suboptimal results in the form of proofs that are not quite correct or are overly complicated, and are improved by the original author or others.

Must have.

And that would be totes different than human mathematicians who pick a problem and work at it it and only it until they succeed.

Dem gaps are a closin hey?

I wasn't replying to you.

LOTS of people here have been skeptical that AI can do X where X is pretty much anything, and certainly where X is "formulate novel math proofs."

PS: I don't disagree with you that Sam Altman claiming something isn't good evidence. That was not the subject of the post I replied to and has nothing to do with my reply to not your post.

Sorry, Apollo was about 300 ballrooms, not 1/3. Need another cup of coffee. If that example isn't dramatic enough, how about: all 11 years of Apollo cost a little more than half the requested increase in the US annual defence budget for 2027.