2nd panel doesn’t make much sense. Google was always an “AI” mixing ads into search results. There weren’t any humans. This is one algorithm (LLM) replacing another ( PageRank plus logic code ).
- 1 Post
- 1.68K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: November 14th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
11·10 hours agoIf you are that worried about money the absurd part is millions of $50k robots, not a $1 surge suppressor added to prevent an EMP from hurting electronics.
If each robot is heavily overbuilt then it become far too expensive to make enough to subdue the population
They have infinite money to pay for them because the money to build them comes from the workers. But really a surge suppressor added to a device is pennies in mass production. If EM pulse was actually effective, Russia would be using it to stop Ukraine’s robots.
https://www.politico.eu/article/volodymyr-zelenskyy-robotic-systems-russia-army-positions-ukraine
That’s because those cars are for you to drive, not them. No expense will be spared for their murderbots.
Military grade weapons are immune to EM pulses. They are shielded and have EM sensors to shut down the exposed sensors during the EM pulse so nothing is effected. That is like a surge surpressor, they can watch for the leading edge of a spike and shut down before damage, then switch back on a millisecond later after the EM pulse is gone.
Source: While in university I had a part time job working for a defense contractor. Weapons had an “operate through” checkbox on the CDRL that needed to be validated. “Operate through” meant Operate through a nuclear em pulse. If the military was building missiles 20 years ago that could fly through an EM pulse from a megaton nuclear airburst, your home-made EM cannon will do nothing to military grade robots.
2·2 days agoIt does to me.
“Your flight has been cancelled on account of a moderate wind in the forecast somewhere between New York and San Francisco.”
Needs cones.
6·2 days agoDoes it or is it the same heat over a shorter period of time?
This graph shows 40C is optimal. So accelerating harder on a cold day could improve range.
No Hanna Barbera? You should throw a few in to mix it up. Like a Snagglepuss, one Huckleberry hound, and one Yogi Bear. The first season of Scooby Doo is iconic. Josie and the Pussy Cats was good. 60’s Hanna would include the excellent Johnny Quest. I’d also throw in a singular Space Ghost and Herculoids to break things up.
1·3 days agoYes they are contradictory. The computer isn’t supernatural. The premise states the computer isn’t 100% accurate. It says 99.9% but it could say 75% without changing the problem. It says 99% to simplify the scenario for the reader so you assume the computer is accurate. The premise is the computer can reliably predict your behavior. The premise is not the computer can defy physics.
You said this:
“This necessarily includes the results of that coin flip and the Geiger counter readings.”
The premise states the computer sets up the boxes BEFORE you enter the room. The OP states he flips the coin AFTER he enters the room.
The computer cannot change the boxes after he entered the room. The computer cannot know the results of how you will respond to the coin flip because it happens AFTER it has fixed the boxes.
. This necessarily includes the results of that coin flip and the Geiger counter readings.
The OP said he flips the coin after going into the room. But the computer setup the boxes before they entered. So the computer knowing how you’d react to the coin flip can’t change the boxes.
There’s the possibility that there’s something else at play that we don’t know, and maybe cannot fathom.
The possibility that there is something hidden that we are not aware of is why Bell’s Theorem was such a revolution in physics. The experimental proof of Bell’s theorem won the nobel prize. There are no hidden variables. Probability is fundamental, not a result of some unknown process.
The premise wasn’t that the computer was 100% perfect. It was 99.9% perfect. That is its good enough such that you should assume its correct. The premise could have said 75% and it wouldn’t change anything. Saying 99% makes it simpler for the reader to assume that the computer is correct.
The computer is not supernatural. The premise does not say the computer is 100% accurate. The premise does not say that the computer can violate known laws of physics. The premise is that the computer knows your behavior.
Pedantic:
The three stars of orion are actually 9 stars. 1 is a trinary, one is a single star and one is a 5 star system.
61·4 days agoHTML with CSS is Turing complete.
141·5 days agoHe didn’t say it was the best, only that it was better than Chrome.
11·5 days agoHe’s getting fresh blood from Thiel’s blood boys.
Then the experiments may be flawed. We dont know what we dont know
That’s the same excuse flat Earthers make. Yes every single observation made over the past 100 years could have been wrong and tomorrow we find out that all of quantum mechanics is wrong.
There are a near infinite number of variables involved, but if we knew every variable, we could solve it.
Take a single electron. You can’t define it’s position and motion (momentum) simultaneously. It is fundamentally unsolvable. There aren’t even hidden variables that we are unaware of. Bell’s inequality has been experimentally proven many times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell’s_theorem
Oh sure the rest of the panels make sense but the second one is LLM ai vs traditional ai.
AI is more than neural net code. Chess programs used to be AI in the 1960’s. Pagerank and the code around it automated away Yahoo’s human curated lists.