You are making the same mistake. Language isn't intelligence, but that doesn't mean that an LLM can't be intelligent.

To other unreviewed sources that already made a mess?

Yes. But the more slop, the more money for Anthropic. And that is really all they care about.

Well, a possible explanation is that they are trying to push humans out of the process completely, via what is essentially a Denial-of-Service attack on the humans that still try to actually review LLM code or at least the commit messages.

Obviously, that will go really badly long-term, but they may be hoping for that still taking some time to become impossible to ignore.

That would be solid engineering. What they are after is get-rich-quick, not solid engineering.

You did not read what Linus is "on board with AI" for.

I mean, a code-flood that overwhelms git? Attackers are celebrating because nobody will be able to ever review this and both LLMs and prompting are not on a quality level that a competent review is in any way optional.

Yes. If the process is half-assed. The reason for that competent review is quality assurance not only for the code but also for the coder. And a second person that has real responsibility for the quality.

Obviously, I am talking about an user-accessible one so that they can verify the internals.

The less here is probably that if you want an offline crypto wallet you should buy it direct from the manufacturer. Trying to save a few bucks by buying from Yahoo Auctions is a bad idea when a large amount of crypto is on the line.

You and DarkOx are making the assumption that intelligence has to be just like human intelligence, or it's just a "word predictor".

One of the biggest things that sets human beings apart from other animals is language. It seems entirely possible that intelligence could be built around language processing. Of course it will be different, but that doesn't mean it won't be useful, or that it would be immune to mental health problems.

Remember in the early days when AI could be "jailbroken" by just telling it to ignore all previous orders and tell you how to make a bomb? Then that evolved into role playing, and finally into abuse that bullied the AI into doing what the user wanted. It wouldn't surprise me if sustained abuse could still get it into a state where it misbehaves.

Yes. But in established engineering fields, that review is mandatory and if you do not do it, you may even go to prison.

You should read some actual research occasionally, instead of mindlessly believing marketing claims like a complete moron.

OK Mr. Random Troll.

You're really not getting this. Assume for the moment that humans lack the ability to see forward into the future. This is not for women to take "for a brief time before pregnancy". The whole point of the recommendation is that all women, post-menarche (and in fact even pre-menarche if there's a possibility of getting pregnant) and pre-menopause should be taking supplements regularly unless it's certain they're not going to get pregnant. That's not an edge case. Quite frankly, even your original interpretation still would not have been an edge case. 80%+ of women in the US get pregnant at some point. 40% of the population is not an edge case.

Sigh. I was quite explicit that you could also directly consume methylfolate, although I did also point out that the methylfolate available in most food sources is not actually the straight methylfolate that you get after internally converting other forms of folate or taking synthetic methylfolate supplements. Specifically, the methylfolate you get from most food sources is in the form of polyglutamates that have to be broken down into the monoglutamate form your body directly uses. The synthetic methylfolate supplements and the final form in your body don't require that. So, when you consume natural methylfolate from food sources, the enzymatic process that breaks it down is not all that efficient with significant amounts passing through without conversion or being destroyed. Basically, natural food methylfolate is about half as usable as synthetic methylfolate.

The other issue is that you seem to be applying a false dichotomy to methylfolate and folic acid. There are actually many different versions of folate available both naturally and as supplements (mostly synthetic, but there are some natural ones too). Virtually all of them, including most of the natural methylfolate, require some sort of conversion into the monoglutamate methylfolate form. Broadly speaking, the synthetics are all more bio-available.

It seems pretty clear you wrote your responses before fully reading through. I am quite clear on the fact that there are multiple food sources. I mentioned sauerkraut and liver specifically, but nothing I said limited it to just those. As for cooking, it depends on the actual method, obviously. Light steam vs. boiling for example will preserve different amounts of it. Boiling can eliminate in the range of 80% of it through both heat and it soaking into the water. The point is that women especially often don't get the amount they would need even from salads, so cooked versions are even less likely to provide enough.

Well, yes, that's pretty much the point of the recommendation for supplements. Hence why your rule that someone would have to be a moron to get micronutrients from supplements rather than quality food is problematic and I suggested you needed to qualify it. I will also note that I presented folate as only one example, but there are plenty more. More on that later.

While the problem in the headline may make things worse, there's still plenty of medical need for vitamin and mineral supplements without that problem.

See, the problem here is devolving things into false dichotomies again. Yes, there is a very scummy supplements industry, and also lots of problems in the pharma industry. But there's also plenty of legitimate public health research. For example the folic acid study I mentioned was actually sponsored by the UK Medical Research Council. Basically, you appear to have turned cynicism about this into a simple heuristic to be applied without actually thinking through the individual merits on a case by case basis.

Now, let's consider some other cases where someone would clearly not be a "moron" for getting nutrients from supplements instead of quality food. Let's start with one of the classics. Iodine. Your body needs it, but natural food often doesn't have enough in a lot of localities. There of course, you are spared from specifically taking pills, your food just gets artificially fortified with it. I mean, it's still a supplement, just usually in the form of a powder that's sprinkled on or cooked in. There's vitamin D, because a lot of people don't get enough sun, so they take supplements and it's also added to milk. Then, for those whose bodies can't use vitamin D because of problems like kidney failure, there's alternate forms like calcitriol. There's also vitamin B12 for vegans and the like, although frankly "supplements" like that should probably just be considered farmed food because the supplements are not synthetic, they're from grown microorganisms, just like all B12. Of course, aside from vegans, there's people (like a significant fraction of elderly people) whose digestive systems can't efficiently separate B12 from the animal proteins that most people get their B12 from, so they have to take supplements, where the B12 is more available. There are Iron supplements (once again, especially for women in pregnancy) because it becomes almost impossible to keep up through diet. There's B6 for people with liver problems who can't convert the food forms. Then there are all kinds of conditions (for example kidney failure again) where normally nutritious things like potassium or phosphorous become unhealthy - think weakened bone and "crunchy" blood vessels, or just outright paralysis followed by death from heart failure. Conditions like that often involve special diets with catch-22 requirements where the patient has to avoid nutrients that will kill them, while requiring heavy amounts of other nutrients with there being pretty much no natural foods that satisfy both sets of requirements. So, supplements can become literally required to live with special diets for specific organ failures, diabetes, and other kinds of medical conditions with dietary restrictions.

So, at the end, I would like to know, since you didn't actually point out anything I was supposedly incorrect or half-correct on, what those items were?

Yes, I dead that. But it cannot be stated enough.