Skip Navigation

  • I don't think it'll be LLMs (which is what a lot of people jump to when you mention "AI"), they have much higher latencies than microseconds. It will be AI of some sort, but probably won't be considered AI due to the AI effect:

    The AI effect is the discounting of the behavior of an artificial intelligence program as not "real" intelligence.

    The author Pamela McCorduck writes: "It's part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, 'that's not thinking'."

    Researcher Rodney Brooks stated: "Every time we figure out a piece of it, it stops being magical; we say, 'Oh, that's just a computation.'"

    LLMs might be useful for researchers diving down a particular research/experiment rabbit hole.

  • I don't have any useful speculation to contribute, but here's a classic chart showing various funding levels towards that goal:

    Coming from a slashdot thread from 2012 where some fusion researchers did an AMA type thing:

    https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions

    Here's also a recent HN thread about achieving more energy than we put in:

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33971377

    The crucial bit is this

    Their total power draw from the grid was 300 megajoules and they got back about 3 megajoules, so don't start celebrating yet

    The critical ELI5 message that should have been presented is that they used a laser to create some tiny amount of fusion. But we have been able to do that for a while now. The important thing is that they were then able to use the heat and pressure of the laser generated fusion to create even more fusion. A tiny amount of fusion creates even more fusion, a positive feedback loop. The secondary fusion is still small, but it is more than the tiny amount of laser generated fusion. The gain is greater than one. That's the important message. And for the future, the important takeaway is that the next step is to take the tiny amount of laser fusion to create a small amount of fusion, and that small amount of fusion to create a medium amount of fusion. And eventually scale it up enough that you have a large amount of fusion, but controlled, and not a gigantic amount of fusion that you have in thermonuclear weapons, or the ginormous fusion of the sun.

    So it's still really encouraging, but just a warning that headlines don't capture the full picture. Bonus fun fact from that thread:

    Theoretical models of the Sun's interior indicate a maximum power density, or energy production, of approximately 276.5 watts per cubic metre at the center of the core, which is about the same power density inside a compost pile.

  • Some background on this comic:

    Transcript:

    The Los Angeles Times, which carries The Far Side, has taken umbrage with my cartoon on several occasions. (Apparently, someone there actually reads the comics beforehand.) These three, as I recall, created some conflicts with the "good taste" standards of that paper, and I believe all three were deleted from their comic page back in the early eighties.

    The first two I suppose are subjective, although I don't remember other papers censoring them. Their rejection of the elephant cartoon, however, had me baffled. I've always found it appalling that the demand for ivory has caused these magnificent animals to be continuously poached—but the ultimate act of contempt for the rights of wildlife has got to be represented by the elephant's foot wastebasket. And that's the point I was striving for in this cartoon—not that I was hoping to make a profound comment of any sort (the cartoon is really pretty inane, I think), but just who wouldn't be upset to find out something like this had been done to a former part of their anatomy?

  • Some background on this comic:

    Transcript:

    Reaction to this cartoon baffled me.

    Although for the most part I think readers understood the "gag," a few individuals accused me of having fun at the expense of hydrocephalics. Yep―that's what they said.

    I hope it's obvious to most people that hydrocephalicus (I still can't believe it) had nothing to do with the cartoon.

    Singling out any tragic disease for ridicule would never fall within my own standards―let alone my editors.

    So what do they think about Charlie Brown?

  • It's the equivalent of riding into town in a beater car. It works and gets you to where you need to be, but it's embarrassing to be seen in.

  • The Bitter Lesson talks about speech recognition instead of synthesis, but I would guess that it's a similar dynamic:

    In speech recognition, there was an early competition, sponsored by DARPA, in the 1970s. Entrants included a host of special methods that took advantage of human knowledge—knowledge of words, of phonemes, of the human vocal tract, etc. On the other side were newer methods that were more statistical in nature and did much more computation, based on hidden Markov models (HMMs). Again, the statistical methods won out over the human-knowledge-based methods. This led to a major change in all of natural language processing, gradually over decades, where statistics and computation came to dominate the field. The recent rise of deep learning in speech recognition is the most recent step in this consistent direction. Deep learning methods rely even less on human knowledge, and use even more computation, together with learning on huge training sets, to produce dramatically better speech recognition systems. As in the games, researchers always tried to make systems that worked the way the researchers thought their own minds worked—they tried to put that knowledge in their systems—but it proved ultimately counterproductive, and a colossal waste of researcher’s time, when, through Moore’s law, massive computation became available and a means was found to put it to good use.

    Also posted over in !discuss@discuss.online here, since I was reminded of the essay

  • Some background on this comic:

    Transcript:

    As a reader pointed out to me, bananas don't grow this way. The individual bananas grow upward, not downward (as I've drawn them here).

    One side of me wants to say, "So sue me," but the truth is, it does bug me when I make these kinds of mistakes.

  • I posted about this a bit ago, but that likely wouldn't work:

    In a First, AI Models Analyze Language As Well As a Human Expert

    https://discuss.online/post/30279537

    Any language you picked or invented would just add to the training data and help the AI out.

  • Judging by the copyright years in the top right that I've seen, it's not chronological. They definitely pick the comics to match some events, like Christmas, but other than that it seems pretty random.

  • Best guess is that they either fainted or are looking down judgmentally at the farmer. Agree that the drawing is ambiguous though

  • Neither, "Good" and "Evil" can't exist absolutely and the universe doesn't care one whit about any of us. Our morality was shaped by what was evolutionarily adaptive, and we developed post-hoc reasoning for it with the nice big brains we evolved.

  • Bonus panel:

    Transcript:

    Mister Miracle: Batman? No way. Remember… Batman kills babies.

  • I've noticed that. Shoutout to !smbc@discuss.online btw, where I post SMBC comics daily. I wonder if Zach would be amenable to integrating with the Fediverse somehow, seems like that would work nicely for comments.

  • I think he drew an eighth note just because that helps get the joke across easier than a whole note. It's more instantly recognizable as music, even if you've never learned how to read it.

  • Some people will never admit it and go to absurd lengths to hate on him, like the person that wrote this article, Mamdani picks his mentor: The woke, radical, anti-Israel YouTuber Ms. Rachel:

    Why would the man about to be sworn in as mayor of America’s largest city elevate a woke, anti-Israel YouTube children’s entertainer to his inner circle, appointing her as a prime member of his inaugural committee?

    Simple: Because Mamdani himself is a child.

    I thought it was parody at first, but it seems to be real.