Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:mostly mash-ups of existing techniques (Score 1) 92

In order to believe your ridiculous claim you pretty much have to go out of your way in search of misinformation at this point. Leaving aside the fact that you don't know the difference between an LLM and a frontier AI model, you also have to know nothing about actual documented proof, time and again, that they have arrived at completely non-novel innovative solutions to real world challenges with zero human intervention.

Comment Re:Quick question (Score 1) 44

No. She isn't wrong about the fact that most science "breakthroughs" don't pass the smell test these days. She doesn't get everything correct (nobody does and she would be the first to tell you she isn't always right), but she does a good job of playing devil's advocate in a world full of clueless pom pom wielding science cheerleaders who have no idea what they are talking about. A lot of sexist white men don't like the fact that she is much smarter than they are, and a lot of others don't like the fact that she calls them out on their bullshit. She rightly points out that science these days is about getting funding, and if some science happens to occur along the way then that is fine with them too.

Comment Re:Fundamental physics has never been more dead (Score 1) 44

I can't tell if you aren't smart enough to understand Sabine and Weinstein, simply don't understand the information available, or have been watching idiots like Sean Carrol, but you are completely off base. String Theory is what has been debunked, and it is a well known fact that scientists have not been doing very much real science for decades. String theory is just maths masturbation and it has set back physics by decades. If you don't believe me ask Roger Penrose. Most of the "scientific breakthroughs" that get reported are total bullshit, and Sabine is an excellent source for understanding why that is often the case.

Comment Re:What benefits? (Score 1) 162

Why wouldn't I say it may cure cancer? You are obviously painfully unaware of the many benefits AI has already afforded and have no understanding of it at all. This is not to say that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, because nobody knows if that will turn out to be true or not at this point, but if you really think AI is all downside and zero benefits you are woefully ignorant. I personally believe it *might* destroy the human race, but I've been reading a lot of Slashdot comments today so I'm having a hard time deciding if that is a plus or a minus.

Comment Re:None (Score 2) 90

I am 100% against flock cameras, but that doesn't mean your statement is true. While I agree that typically people will still steal even with flock cameras, if they catch people doing so and they go to jail they are not able to steal more. So while the a priori effect is negligible, that doesn't mean they can't reduce theft. The problem is that even if they do the loss of freedom from mass surveillance is not compensated for by the few cases where it makes things marginally better in a few select cases, especially given that it is abused already and this is documented fact.

Slashdot Top Deals

At these prices, I lose money -- but I make it up in volume. -- Peter G. Alaquon

Working...