You can easily diffuse that situation by hanging a tea towel around her shoulders like a cape and saying “look, now you’re Super Angry”

down the vena cavity to her heart

I’m not sure this guy is a proper doctor…

You say that, and GAs were used decades ago to design FPGAs to a spec. The evolved design worked perfectly on the test chip, so the design was copied onto a second chip and it failed. The logic gates were identical but the GA had utilised microscopic differences in the substrate and there were large areas of programmed chip totally unconnected to the main circuit. Without them, the first chip didn’t work any more.

There are likely quantum effects available at the size / scale of neurons, and it’s brave to say evolution wouldn’t exploit them if there was some benefit.

Since yours was the first reply I came to that didn’t just ‘react’, I’d like to challenge 1 point in your list (the rest I pretty much agree with), and that is the first one. For context, I worked in AI (or ML as it was known then) in the 1990s. The models were very much based on ideas from neuroscience (my CS PhD supervisor was a biologist). Saying “they can’t think” requires a precise definition of what “thinking” is, and I’ve not seen one so far.

For sure, the most current LLMs are not what we might call human-level sentient, and have only seen a fraction of what a human baby would be exposed to in terms of training data. But as far as the way they process that data, perhaps they are “thinking” in the same way a brain would think if all it ever ‘saw’ was text. Perhaps they think in the same way an insect or small rodent thinks. And as they grow larger / more sophisticated, the same as a dog or cat? Or a small primate? You can see where that’s going.

Anyway, I enjoyed The Infinity Machine by Sebastian Mallaby. My PhD was based on the early work of Yann LeCun, and putting all those names and the motivations behind them into a full picture was eye-opening.

Well the headline on the article is very different now. I even get a slightly different version between reader mode and full website.

But it doesn’t say ‘become’. That totally changed the meaning. My breasbone can brease easy now, thank you!

Your ribs would what now?

You missed a ‘?’ I think you meant:

input?.map?.(item => …

I’m curious—can you tell the lighting isn’t rated from these images, or just because of the number / cost?

Also curious about the chains—does that means they can’t be reused for long if they’ve been outdoors? I assume there’s plenty of regulation around that kind of thing.

I choose perish.

Wait, what? I’m sending it back…

And leading (being in front) doesn’t rhyme with leading (the metal on a roof).

Not yet.

Well, you have to know your symbols for that part of it. I bought it mainly for the danger.

Where else :)

Stay indoors.

!theyknew@lemmy.sdf.org seems to be most active

This was on a custom domain, and I started off with xyz-1@domain.com, and when it became saturated I moved to -2, -3, etc. But then got lazy and used my current ‘version’ to sign up for things I’d want to keep, not just any old random stuff. So now it’s a mix, and much better ways of doing that exist, like +tagging and hide-my-email services.

I even wondered about setting up a catch-all account on the domain so I can just invent them on the fly, and then when one becomes spammy, create an ‘actual’ account as a spamhole.

I have a question—I suspect the answer is yes even if indirectly, but thought I’d ask in case you already thought of this. I have many email addresses, and one in particular is the source of lots of spam. Unfortunately it’s also one I’ve used to login to many services I actually use so I can’t easily delete it. Can I use Paperweight to make a list of services I need to go change my email on before consigning my 20+ year old address to the bin?