I don’t think it’s very surprising. The various CS departments are extremely happy to ride the wave of easy funding and spend a lot of time boosting AI, just like how a few years ago all the cryptographers were getting into blockchains. For instance they added an entire new “AI” major, while eliminating the electrical engineering major on the grounds that “computation” is more important than electrical engineering.
No, but the moon does.
the moon could get mad - fact.
Harry Potter and the Surprisingly Good Take
If you want a serious discussion of interpretations of quantum mechanics, here is a transcript of a lecture “Quantum Mechanics in Your Face” which has the best explanation I’ve ever seen. I’d recommend the first 6 of Peter Shor’s Quantum Computation notes (don’t worry they’re each very short) for just enough background to understand the transcript.
I honestly think anyone who writes “quantum” in an article should be required to take a linear algebra exam to avoid being instantly sacked
Possibly the worst misunderstanding of quantum mechanics I’ve ever seen. I have no idea how anyone managed to convince themselves that the laws of physics are somehow different for conscious observers.
don’t mention skull sizes for 5 minutes challenge
Wasn’t Heidegger a Nazi, and his works famously avoid any mention of the Holocaust?
im doing my part
Dan Luu’s “A discussion of discussions on AI bias”, about techbros trying to gaslight the rest of the world into thinking ML models don’t have problems
Why when we look into the stars do we not see a sign of life anywhere else? Has life not emerged yet or has it wiped itself out? With what? Nukes? AI? Synthetic viruses made with AI? Who knows…
entertaining this awful sci-fi schtick for a moment - if every civilization is wiped out by “superintelligent AI”, how come you can’t look through a telescope and see signs of artificial life? in this fantasy world shouldn’t planets taken over by paperclip factories be even more conspicuous?
value is when line go up
Analyzing our data we conclude with 95% confidence that within a decade the Dyson Sphere Any% TAS time will be reduced below 55 seconds (± 1E10 years).
“[massive deficiency] isn’t a flaw of the program because it’s designed to have that deficiency”
it is a problem that it plagiarizes, how does saying “it’s designed to plagiarize” help???
The normal way to reproduce information which can only be found in a specific source would be to cite that source when quoting or paraphrasing it.
I thought Penrose was a smart physicist, the hell is he doing peddling this.
nvm i misread
For some reason the previous week’s thread doesn’t show up on the feed for me (and didn’t all week)…nvm, i somehow managed to block froztbyte by accident, no idea how