there is not a single thing that could wipe out a deep sea habitat that wouldnt also wipe any space colonies. but i dont see anybody arguing for that, despite being far more achievable and practical. also, there is no feasible way for space colonies to be self sufficient anywhere in the near future, so wiping out earth also wipes out space colonies relying on it for supplies. this argument aboOt survivability is absurd.

us economists are hardly at threat of being disappeared for criticizing the economy

you’ve got it. the period of the sun up/sun down cycle would be the orbital period.

via statistical imitation. other methods, such as solving and implementing by first principles analytically, has not been shown to be np hard. the difference is important but the end result is still no agigpt in the foreseeable and unforeseeable future.

the limitation is specifically using the primary machine learning technique, same one all chatbots use at places claiming to pursue agi, which is statistical imitation, is np-hard.

also the answer to that question, shitloads of data for a better ai, is yes… with logarithmic returns. massively underpriced (by cost to generate) returns that have questionable value statement at best.

Humanity is not intrinsically violent to this scale.

could you expand on that?

programmer linguistigs is certainly something to behold.

read where?

Just going to point out: russian culture doesnt use nazi in the same way we do; largely they dont view nazis as ontologically bad because of the bigotry or the antisemitism or the genocide of many peoples, but because they were an existential threat to russia or russian ethnicities. a lot of the associations westerners have about nazis are just not widespread in russia. this is why there are a lot of seemingly idiosyncratic phrasings in this kind of stuff.

this is an explicit design feature of federation: free association. this is one of the primary reasons it is in theory better than something centralized. this post is layers of wrong.

nothing you’ve said is worth responding to in a novel way, see earlier comment.

“when they’re drunk at 8am”, he didnt say “we”

also note the other quotes in the article that similarly single out Crow.

see certain optical illusions in a way that other vision models cannot.

eh… but not in a way that is really like what humans see. which is the articles claim, but it makes a clasically cs approach to nuerology: zero effort to prove the quite substantial claim.

Word soup

that is most certainly not word soup. it’s also an accurate statement, though uncharitable to the authors claims.

Also, the detail in description of their “quantum” inspiration (an effect not unique to quantum mechanics in fact, at that level of description) reads like they skimmed wikipedia’s intro to xyz topic, whether or not the author understands the topics more deeply.

neither are jerks, they simply are what they are trying to survive hostile environments best they can with what they have.

it’s a wasp, it is hungry.

So then why dont vegetarians have any options at them? why does “vegan/vegetarian wouldnt accomodate meat” a logical follow on to not accomodating vegetarians at an omnivores bbq?

im sorry do you not have veggies of any kind at your bbqs to make this dichotomy make sense? you’re missing out

if this observation is even accurate then an alternative explanation is just that people in relationships are more used to being emotionally available, more recently have practiced “relationshipping”, and have a larger social circle.