I think what we do have evidence for is that you didn't read the paper, but I did, because it was interesting. From the paper:

Godel does no such thing. The incompleteness theorem says that some things can't be proven, and aren't computable, but every example of that *includes humans*. It's not a case that you can't build a computer and program in an axiomatic system that is consistent and can prove every statement with godel numbers, but that a human can prove a statement in that system that that computer can't prove. The human can't either. It's a statement about the limits of axiomatic mathematical systems.

There's no evidence anything in human thought falls under the realm of uncomputability. In fact, given that the brain is made up of neurons that are guaranteed to fire or not fire given specific conditions, electrical and chemical, there's plenty of evidence that it *must* be computable and algorithmic.

That is a terrible system, I'm surprised they do it that way. Banks are usually better about that. The only times I got a call from my bank that required me to prove who I was, it was either a returned call, and they mentioned the subject and that I had called, before they started verifying my identity, so I knew it was legit. Or the fraud alert people, and they could easily verify that they were who they said they were, because they asked about specific purchase attempts with the amount and location before they tried to verify my identity.

I did get one *actual* phishing call decades ago that made me absolutely crack up. The person on the other line said they were from "the bank." They didn't say which bank, just "the bank." Usually I immediately hang up on phishing, but that one made me want to engage a bit: I asked "which bank" and he answered, "your bank." At that point I just burst out laughing and the gig was up, so I hung up.

I had an instance of a work e-mail years ago, that was sent from a third-party contractor, that had so many red flags for very obvious phishing (including coming from outside the organization, wtf).

Where I work, we have a place to forward phishing emails so that IT can review it. I forwarded it there, and apparently so many other people did that a follow-up email had to be sent out that said, "we thank everyone for pointing out this e-mail as phishing, but we can confirm it's actually legit."

I think they learned the lesson from that, because it has not happened since that we got such a terrible email. I think my point is that overtraining may not work, but having a place to report phishing is a great idea. It only takes one person to report it, and then the IT department sends out a massive e-mail to warn everyone else about it, so it doesn't rely on them recognizing it (and anyone that already fell victim to it can report that they have, so action can be taken to minimize the damage). And in cases like you and I experienced, they can also do the opposite and confirm that it's real.

I agree, but go the other route for the comparison to humans and thought: people need to stop thinking that what we do when we "think" isn't algorithmic. Of course it is. We're not that special.

The models are trained on the same data, and they create their output based on the connections they made with all the previous data. When we ask it to generate "random" numbers, they're not any more random than when a human is asked to generate a random list of numbers. It's not purposefully encoding the information in the numbers because transmitting its love for owls is important to it, but the favorite animal information tokens are part of the seed made when it's generating those numbers.

Invariably, the second LLM that has been trained on the same data as the first will have the same data connections to those numbers. It's similar to how, when I was dating, I was filtering out anyone that added the information in the app that they had not been vaccinated for COVID. There's a *lot* of information associated with the type of person who was not only not vaccinated, but felt that they needed to state it. The information isn't contained in that assertion alone, but combined with the information already in my brain, it tells me a lot about their belief structure in things completely unrelated to vaccines and COVID. The LLM is doing that.

The fact that ChatGPT gives bad answers is a plus when using it to debug your knowledge. I often bring it down from GPT 4 to GPT 3 when Iâ(TM)m using it to help with my reasoning, because when it gives me something that doesnâ(TM)t sound right, if I can then reason out why it doesnâ(TM)t sound right, it means Iâ(TM)ve reached the understanding Iâ(TM)m looking for. Itâ(TM)s not about using it as a source. Itâ(TM)s a better version of explaining something to a rubber duck to force yourself to reason it through. Better because it gives you feedback. As long as youâ(TM)re engaged, incorrect feedback is just as useful as correct one.

Because people with high clearance sometimes want attention too, and that shouldn't be surprising. We have a lot of people with high clearance, you really expect 0 of them to be crackpots?

Of course there is. Denying funding for a program that doesn't exist changes nothing, so there are no actual consequences to the provision, so you do no damage by voting yes. On the other hand, voting no will get you accused of being part of the conspiracy hiding aliens, which is a political can of worms.

We're absolutely dealing with a cabal of conspiracy theorists, but our elected officials are too cowardly to go against them. It's the safer path to just make a show of it, it even gets you some media attention which is great name-recognition for re-election time.

What do you use for your non-toxic electrodes?

It's in TFA.

Quercetin, a pigment found in almonds and capers, serves as the battery cathode, whereas riboflavin (vitamin B2) makes up the battery anode.

Come on, man, get out of your armchair.

I've been on reddit for two long, I apologize for the giant formatting mess above. Here's the properly formatted version:

In addition to that, it's important to keep in mind that they want to be the ones to decide what the regulations are: "Murati said the company is constantly talking with governments and regulators and other organizations to agree on some level of standards."

They don't really want to be regulated, they want the ability to tell the government what the regulation should be. If the government were to regulate in a way that says, for instance, "all AI research must be open, and you must publish the methods and source" I'm pretty sure they'd be suddenly very anti-regulation considering their newer stances.

>Because they're the first on the market and benefitted from zero regulation to get where they are, and any regulation enacted now will put barriers on the growth of future competitors. In addition to that, it's important to keep in mind that they want to be the ones to decide what the regulations are: "Murati said the company is constantly talking with governments and regulators and other organizations to agree on some level of standards." They don't really want to be regulated, they want the ability to tell the government what the regulation should be. If the government were to regulate in a way that says, for instance, "all AI research must be open, and you must publish the methods and source" I'm pretty sure they'd be suddenly very anti-regulation considering their newer stances.

You make a fair point that maybe there is a better way to deal with the extra thermal resistance that the extra cache introduces. However, practicalities might be interfering: if this is a niche part bought only by serious gamers, there might not be enough profit there to justify the extra R&D needed to improve the cooling. There could be other reasons as well, and maybe a later generation of the 3D chips will include better thermal designs, but only if the market demand can justify it.

The X3D variants are just X chips with an additional layer of cache added on top, right? In that case, they probably want to keep the manufacturing process for the two lines as similar as possible: i.e. the X3D runs through the same line as the X but just with an extra step to add a layer at the end.

Argument still applies, to a significant degree. The article you linked makes general reference to JPL having an "unprecedented workload", but unless the people freed up in the project cuts can usefully contribute to other projects, those cuts won't necessarily alleviate that workload. I see no indication in the review board documentation that they took that into consideration.

to free up programmers and engineers for the missions that were closer to their launch dates

This is short-sighted: programmers and engineers are non-fungible.

Even if the ones that were freed up have the right skills for Psyche (not a given if they just looked at reached milestones, even ignoring that VERITAS is a radar mission and Psyche is imager/spectrometer/gravity), getting new people up to speed takes time. There'll be a period where using existing staff to train incoming staff will actually slow down the project. That's fine if you're in the early stages, but Psyche is almost done and already overdue...

Of course you can't put 200 chargers on a 10 kW feed, that's not what I was suggesting.

If *everyone* wants a charger, I don't see a problem - upgrade the feed going to the garage to support 1 MW, and if necessary the building feed, and split the cost across all residents (building upgrade == huge win for your landlord). If there's really only 3 people who want it, well then maybe a 10 kW feed can be made to work safely. This is only a problem if a large minority wants it, enough that the feed needs to be upgraded but not enough to feasibly split the cost of the feed upgrade.

Your landlord's just being obstructionist. And, if your municipal network doesn't currently have the capacity for chargers (doubtful, if we're talking about level 2 chargers) then they better get on that quick, because they're going to have to handle them soon whether they like it or not.

You're also making a very common mistake: fixating on the problem rather than looking for possible solutions.