Anyone who’s feared for their life on the back of a horse that likes messing with people can absolutely confirm that they smell your fear, relish it, and will rigorously calculate the optimal route to getting under your skin.

Source for what this is?

Edit: NVM another comment linked to the Wikipedia page for RO15-4513

You have to elaborate on this, please.

This is completely possible without having anything close to ADHD. Stop making everything a symptom of ADHD.

A human with no experience in the field is liable to recognise that fact and start asking questions, showing doubt and learning. That’s infinitely better than spewing incorrect bullshit.

To be fair, I do think the average accepted stackoverflow answer displays far more competence than the average human.

One of the few things I use LLM’s for is giving me overviews of best-practice in things I’m not familiar with (before reading the posts I find to get more in-depth understanding)

That’s exactly what people have done for millennia though. It’s literally the reason you have heat in the winter and aren’t living in a cave.

That isn’t what bothers me the most though. Earlier today I read a piece by a “tech journalist” in a paper I normally respect as doing proper work. The mentioned that one of the guys behind Claude says that Claude writes absolutely all their code now. They also said they did a test of one of the most recent models (released earlier this week), and that it wrote “A full Amazon-cloud based page that did various verification and authentication jobs, was about 67 000 lines of code, and was approved by the IT department in minutes in an afternoon”. The last part tells me they have no clue what they’re talking about. They just generated 67 000 lines of potential bugs that works, and which wasn’t reviewed by anyone competent. Nobody reviews 67 000 lines of code in a day, let alone minutes. Just the fact that they thought generating a shitload of boilerplate (most of the lines were likely that) impressive, says enough.

It’s not your average Joe thinking this is cool that bothers me (it is cool). It’s when allegedly competent people start thinking the LLM actually has any idea what it’s doing.

I assume that, just like with a circular orbit, it could be theoretically possible to have some crazy figure-8 orbit around two stars, but that orbit would be so unstable you will in practice never find it in the real world.

What I mean is you could probably design some crazy solution to the three-body problem that in principle remains periodic, but which will completely dissolve at even a slight perturbation.

I would say that this directly targets the people that can already clearly afford the fines easily enough that they keep speeding enough to get caught. Someone that is severely hurt by the fines are already likely to be deterred from speeding by the fines. This addresses the people that eat the fines and keep speeding again and again.

The possibilities for actuality are enormous here!

To me this is an open question, gonna try tomorrow and report back.

Gonna see if i can cross over to the apartment opposite me by not looking down. This could be a miracle for transportation!

I’m a researcher myself, so I feel like I can weigh in on the “reproducibility crisis”. There are several facets to it: One is of course money, but that’s not just related to corporately funded research. Good luck finding or building an independent lab capable of reproducing the results at CERN. It basically boils down to the fact that some (a lot of) research is insanely expensive to do. This primarily applies to experiments and to some degree to computationally expensive stuff.

Another side is related to interest. Your average researcher is fired up by the thought of being the first person to discover and publish something no one has seen before. It’s just not as fun to reproduce something someone else has already done. Even if you do, you’re likely to try to improve on it somehow, which means the results may change without directly invalidating the old results. It can be hard work to write a good paper, so if you don’t feel your results are novel enough that they’re worth the effort (because they’re basically just equivalent to previously published values) you might not bother to put in the effort to publish them.

Finally, even without direct reproduction of previously published results, science has a way asymptotically approaching some kind of truth. When I develop and publish something, I’m building on dozens of previously published works. If what they did was plain wrong, then my models would also be liable to fail. I’ve had cases where we’ve improved on previously published work, not because we tried to reproduce it, but because we tried to build on their results, and found out that their results didn’t make sense. That kind of thing is fairly common, but not reported as a “reproduction study”.

There’s also review articles that, while they don’t do any reproduction themselves, collect and compare a bunch of comparable work. They usually have some conclusions regarding what results appear trustworthy, and what appear to be erroneous.

I think the point is that the military, I assume in most countries, can accept a completely different risk picture for soldiers that society at large can accept for civilians. Thus, the military can viably mandate a vaccine that causes severe side effects in e.g. 1/1000 cases, given that the alternative (a serious disease spreading in the ranks) is worse.

Remember that by far most military casualties have historically been due to disease and other conditions not directly related to the enemies weapons. The militaries primary job is to remain combat effective, even if it means mandating a vaccine that is known to cause casualties. This kind of approach would never be acceptable for civilian society at large, where society is deemed responsible for protecting every individual. The military isn’t. It’s primarily responsible for protecting the civilian society, even at the cost of exposing soldiers to high risk scenarios.

I try to live by a similar “always try to interpret peoples actions in the most positive possible way”. This means that if someone says something hurtful, they probably didn’t mean it, either something came out wrong or you misinterpreted them. Spend a couple seconds thinking about what they could have meant, and suddenly you’re choosing to interpret them in a way that makes your day better instead of worse.

Same goes for actions. If someone does something you don’t like, you can very often choose to figure out what a good reason for their actions are. Trying my best to think like this has made me a lot happier and more easy-going.

reject all forms of advertising

Yes. If I need something, I’ll go looking for it. If your product is a decent solution to my problem, I’ll find it and buy it when I need it. If you want visibility and/or publicity, you can advertise on your own platform, or do reviews, beta-testing, or press-releases in relevant channels.

There is literally no reason that you should ever shove your product in my face. The people whose job it is to do the shoving should be fired, and replaced by people that actually contribute to solving real problems. We have more than enough of those.

Fantastic thing though: It doesn’t “eat” radiation in the sense that it becomes radioactive itself. It just absorbs the energy from the radiation, like plants absorb sunlight, to power a synthesis that lets it convert CO2 to organic material.

They don’t just steal it: They make you pay to publish (varies by journal/tier).

They they SELL ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE ARTICLES THE REASERCHERS AT THE UNIVERSITY WROTE.

It makes me sick. It also makes me wonder how e.g. the EU hasn’t gone in and made some system that can kill these sharks.

That was really a fantastic read!