We can't do that yet, and may never be able to be that specific. Trying to do it, however, could be exceedingly dangerous.

N.B.: All bacteria and viruses have a very high mutation rate.

It's possible that cetaceans have a true language. They certainly have something that seems to function the same as a "hello, I am (name)", where the name part differs between all cetaceans but the surrounding clicks are identical. The response clicks also include that same phrase which researchers think serves the purpose of a name.

But we've done structural analysis to death and, yes, all the results are interesting (it seems to have high information content, in the Shannon sense, seems to have some sort of structure, and seems to have intriguing early-language features), but so does the Voynich Manuscript and there's a 99.9% chance that the Voynich Manuscript is a fraud with absolutely no meaning whatsoever. Structure only tells you if something is worth a closer look and we have known for a long time that cetacean clicks were worth a closer look. Further structural work won't tell us anything we don't already know.

What we need is to have a long-term recording of activities and clicks/whistles, where the sounds are recorded from many different directions (because they can be highly directional) and where the recording positively identifies the source of each sound, what that source was doing at the time (plus what they'd been doing immediately prior and what they do next), along with what they're focused on and where the sounds were directed (if they were). This sort of analysis is where any new information can be found.

But we also need to look at lessons learned in primate research, linguistics, sociology and anthropology, to understand what ISN'T going to work, in terms of approaches. In all three cases, we've learned that you learn best immersively, not from a distance. If an approach has failed in EVERY OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCE, then assuming it is going to work in cetacean research is stupid. It might be the correct way to go, but assuming it is is the bit that is stupid. If things fail repeatedly, regardless of where they are applied, then there's a decent chance it is necessary to ask that maybe the stuff that keeps failing is defective.

While the four hottest days on record have occurred in the last seven years, with one of them just reaching 40 degrees, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the "UK now routinely sees 40C summer peaks".

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

It's also a bit of a stretch to claim that there are "long stretches above 30C". Last year was considerably above average with 14 days, which came in two or three periods at least (I don't remember, but it wasn't one go). It certainly feels hotter than that, especially with buildings that are insulated for winter and don't have A/C or if you're down on the Tube.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.extremeweatherwatc...

I do agree with you though, that person did write a lot of drivel!

They may not be, but you can bet that SOMEONE is.

I know software estimation for even small to medium projects can be bad, but what is it about government projects that makes it so hard? Low balled estimates to win contracts? Lack of appropriate project management experience and oversight?

If you think that is bad, see the estimates to restore the Palace of Westminster (UK's Victorian parliamentary building): £15-40 billion and up to 60 years. I saw somewhere that they expected the costs to balloon by 40-60% before VAT and inflation. It's currently costing nearly £1.5/week just in maintenance.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk...

Wasn't Crossrail something like 30% over budget and several years late? Maybe that's not bad for the construction industry ;)

Over evolutionary time, starvation was a major killer. It may be rare today (comparatively), but it used to be a real threat. Even today it's not insignificant. And it directly selects for the ability to eat whatever's available.

I think it's more "environmentally induced epigenetic modifications", which *are* a real thing, and sometimes can be inherited...but I don't think inheritance is needed for this argument, as the environment has kept chaning in the same direction. I.e. more fine muscle movement in the upper body, less massive physical effort.

Is finding, reporting, and fixing latent bugs in C or C++ code a practical purpose? Because they're doing a damn good job of that.

If you have access to its command-input interface, either you own the system and are expected to be able to manipulate it, or you've somehow obtained unauthorized access, in which case it has a security problem, and it would be an equally serious problem for a non-AI system.

You could mine Bitcoin, I suppose, but the obvious thing to do would be charge up your EV. Energy storage on wheels!

It depends on how you define the term. I tend to consider any choice an act of reasoning (including a simple if test). I know that most people have a different definition, but I can rarely get them to define what they mean by the term. I tend to suspect it's an "I know it when I see it" kind of thing.

Are they not forgotten now? I never heard of them before this story.

Umnnh...but I think the programs that do that are different programs than the ones that understand source code. (Well, not *that* much different, but trained on a massively different data set.)

FWIW, I think understanding binary code is probably an easier problem for an AI than understanding source code, but it *does* require different training.

You could be right, but my take was that it was made by a manager who had no idea. Of course, they could both be true.