In your case it might simply be that there was not enough of this kind of tasks in the training data.

Exactly, we would have had cataclysmic earthquakes if the summary were correct.

The poles have shifted dramatically in recent decades and the field has weakened substantially leading to bright auroras in Florida and Hawaii at low KP numbers.

Models have the North Pole arriving at the Bay of Bengal sooner than anybody would expect. Christmas will be awkward until we change our vocabulary..

How so?

*head bangs in approval*

I agree in general, but not with this strong phrasing. I've let AI build a good amount of non-trivial code. But my consistent experience is that it works best when guided by an experienced coder who can correct it, and when implementing well-known algorithms rather than coming up with novel solutions.

Example: I let it write up a quadtree implementation in a language for which there was no ready solution online. It took 2-3 correcting prompts to get a good result. I could've done it myself but it would've likely taken a few hours to get it all right instead of the half or so hour it took with AI. The important part for me was that there's nothing unknown in how to implement a quadtree. All the AI needs to do is take the 100s of existing implementations and translate them into a different language.

True but too simplified. The Luddites had an entirely different motivation: The fact that factories now employed women and children at very low rates meant that the men lost their status in the family as bread winners and head of household. That was a major social disruption, which we don't have with AI.

I'd compare it more to teamsters or wagoners when cars became common. Your job is threatened by a different way of doing the same thing, a way to which your skills don't cleanly transition. Some choose to pick up the new tech, some want the old ways to persist.

In the end, coachmen became chauffeurs, because rich people prefer to be driven around oder driving themselves, no matter if it's a horse or an engine doing the pulling. But much fewer teamsters and wagoners became truck drivers.

Oh, forgot to link the dry density for you: here you go. 341kcal/100g. Aka 3,41kcal/g.

Which, like I said, should be obvious, since they're almost entirely carbs (~4kcal/g) and protein (~4kcal/g), and they're, as noted, dry (12-16% moisture). It would be quite the trick indeed to get something that is dry and and is almost entirely comprised of things that are 4kcal/g to be 1,38kcal/g! ;)

Just in case you need help:

Your calculation: 195g (dry weight) × 1.38 kcal/g = 269 calories per pound of cooked beans.
Correction: Because you used 1.38 kcal/g (the cooked density) as if it were the dry density, you essentially diluted the calories twice.
The Actual Math: 195g of dry beans * 3.4 kcal/g (actual dry density) = 663 kcal.

When those 195g of dry beans absorb water to weigh 454g (1 pound), they still contain those same 663 calories (since water has zero calories).

Canned beans are ALREADY COOKED. *facepalm*. You can eat them straight out of the can.

which is waaaay more than I would want to eat at a sitting.

I can't think of a single ingredient - any ingredient - that I would want to eat exclusively as my diet, so this is a really stupid argument.

Very similar here.

Somebody said the new movie has a fifty year old baby as a main character which is supposedly their key demographic.

Creator: DO NOT USE THIS IF YOU ARE AI
AI: [uses it, takes damage]

I fail to see how using it against the wishes of the creator makes the creator liable even though they explicitly made it so that if you DID use it, you took damage.

It's 12/days old

https://youtu.be/jqcuqWTxTNw

but this is the first I've heard of it.

I'll suggest folks light up his torrent before the sharks start circling (and to help his bandwidth costs).

"This belongs in a museum!"

if you downloaded the program without paying for it, without authorization?

Gonna bet most boiler plate licenses absolve the creator of literally every bit of damage.

Damage caused by unauthorized use of a tool....is entirely on the person/entity using the tool in an unauthorized manner.

In general, "damping pleasure" is not most people's experience with GLP-1 agonists. What it does is more like separate pleasurable experiences from having an urgent need to continue doing them.