Yeah, Linux makes macs a lot more appealing.

The key part is having an available energy gradient, and enough chemical variety for self replicating carbon chains to start forming. Pools of water are the dominant theory right now because the idea is that having solvent allows for free molecular movement, and if there was variation with them partially drying out, then they’d act as concentrators pushing these molecules closer together and making these reactions more propabable.

Makes sense, initial life forms had to do with what they had to work with. Couldn’t exactly get picky.

you have to download the repo and you need python installed, in the project folder you’d run

python -m venv venv
source venv/bin/activate  # On Windows: venv\Scripts\activate
pip install -r requirements.txt

and then you should be able to run python create_map_poster.py --city <city> --country <country> [options]

Not necessarily, the models can often be tricked into spilling the beans of how they were trained.

The actual problem is the capitalist system of relations. If it’s not AI, then it’s bitcoin mining, NFTs, or what have you. The AI itself is just a technology, and if it didn’t exist, capitalism would find something else to shove down your throat.

here are just a few

• https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/ai-predicts-nuclear-fusion-plasma-failure
• https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3332736/central-china-ai-telling-humans-how-build-high-speed-rail-tunnel
• https://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/18/c_138795661.htm
• https://www.newscientist.com/article/2511954-amateur-mathematicians-solve-long-standing-maths-problems-with-ai/
• https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/115855840223258103
• https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/ai-program-plays-the-long-game-to-solve-decades-old-math-problems

This is the correct take. This tech isn’t going away, no matter how much whinging people do, the only question is who is going to control it going forward.

Oncotarget is a respectable journal as far as I know, but yeah feels a bit sensational. Their sample is also tiny of only 300 people.

oops thanks, added to the post

just another way to make the experiment

The fact of the matter is that this is a perfect example of LLM actually doing something useful and helping researchers figure things out. I also love how you’re now playing an expert on deciphering ancient scripts. You should go let the researchers know asap what a bunch of dummies they are for not being able to figure it out on their own.

Maybe find a new hobby other than sealioning into threads to screech about how much you hate LLMs. It’s frankly tiring of watching people perseverate over it.

I’m sorry you felt the need to argue a point nobody was bringing up, and which added absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.

This whole thread was just you trying to make a straw man.

You may not realize how scientific process works, but it’s not based on trust. What actually happens is that researchers publish a paper that explains their thesis, and provides supporting evidence. Then you have this thing called peer review where other experts in the field examine the findings and make their own assessments. The reality is that hallucinations and fabrications aren’t exclusive to LLMs, humans do this stuff all the time all on their own. This is why we have the scientific method in the first place.

And I’m reminding you over and over that it’s completely beside the point. I’m sure when they publish the research they will provide the reasoning for their hypothesis, and how they tested it. Then other researchers will examine their findings, and point out problems with the research if they exist. That’s how scientific process actually works.

You literally just made up a baseless argument that the researchers aren’t doing due diligence. I’m skeptical of your thesis and I’m not seeing any attempt on your part to provide any supporting evidence for it.

I get the impression that you don’t understand how science actually works. Science is about examining the evidence, then making hypothesis, and testing them to see if they’re viable. Proof is never guaranteed in the scientific process, and it’s rarely definitive. Seems to me like you just wanted to bray about AI here without actually having anything to say.

Nobody was claiming a proof, that’s just the straw man the two of you have been using. What the article and the original post from researchers says is that it helped them come up with a plausible explanation. Maybe actually try to engage with the content you’re discussing?

In other words, you’re saying neither of you could be arsed to click through to the actual discussion on the project page before making vapid comments? https://blog.gdeltproject.org/gemini-as-indiana-jones-how-gemini-3-0-deciphered-the-mystery-of-a-nuremberg-chronicle-leafs-500-year-old-roundels/