I was going to say, it does depend on the drug and person. My son had that experience where the insurance flip-flopped to cover generic instead of Adderall, but it did not work at all for him so we had to fight to get it changed back. Since then every year or so insurance plays their game and we have to go through the ritual explaining why it can't be generic when that becomes the one covered. It shouldn't be this hard, right?
Rhaedas
joined 8 months ago
Even a hypothetically true artificial general intelligence would still not be a moral agent
That's a deep rabbit hole that can't be stated as a known fact. It's absolutely true right now with LLMs, but at some point the line could be crossed. If and when, how, and by what definition has been a long debate nowhere near resolved.
It's highly possible that AGI/ASI could come about and be both super intelligent and self conscious and still have no sense of morality. But how can we at human levels even comprehend what's possible? There's the real danger, we have no idea what we could be heading towards.
Neither is bossa nova/samba (TOS) or a country ballad (Firefly).
I think just using it as instrumental would have been fine, for some reason having lyrics for the first time scarred some fans, even though it's really not that bad.
I wanted to jump into using Peertube, but unfortunately Youtube grew enormous because it was the only thing at the time. Pulling people from it to other platforms with less viewers and usually no compensation is tough. (although YT compensation as of late is a joke as well)
Trolley problems usually have some conflict that makes the decision hard.
Thorium was being tested for viability alongside uranium, and got scrapped not because it wasn't a feasible design, but because it couldn't produce weapon grade material as a byproduct. Some countries are finally exploring thorium again, hopefully with some success.
Look up NASA's versions of RTGs. Just because Russia did everything wrong doesn't make a technology bad, just mishandled.
Of course the market selected renewables as the favored child. "Renewable" and "green" are marketing terms, as is "net zero" and "recycling". I'm not here with any agenda, I just brought up some points about environmental damage that solar can do on both sides of its existence. I guess I ruffled some feathers.
Did you miss my points about having some of both? Or did you just read the first few lines and rage post? I figured this was a forum where we could discuss the pros and cons of all sides, not just hate on anyone with a differing view.
I'm not comparing them, I'm saying that it's inaccurate to ignore the effects that solar has.
The chemicals in producing PV panels are toxic. Part of why production got shifted to countries like China is because without regulation on the waste disposal they are so much cheaper to make there. Sucks for the residents, but that's capitalism.
Energy is used to make PV. True of everything, but when solar is advertised it leans heavy on the free energy that the device generates, not how much it took to make it. But at least that energy can come from solar too...except it comes from fossil fuels.
The heavy metals that make up part of the other 10% are the later waste problem. I don't know if you can consider those metals inert since they are considered hazardous waste, but they can't be discounted either. A recycling program to recover everything possible and then controlling the hazardous leftovers would make this less of a point, but we're not doing that fully yet, so there are things going in the landfills now that could leach into the environment.
All of this can be improved of course. I'm just introducing the fact that solar, like anything we do to keep our society at its level, has drawbacks too.
Nuclear has its problems, as I mentioned. I didn't pretend that solar is bad and nuclear is all flowers. But the issues it faces are much different and have their own solutions, and nuclear energy density and flexibility is far better than solar ever could be.
I never understand why people pick their sides and then try to make other choices seem like the antithesis to help their cause. Why not find the best solutions for all of the non-fossil fuel sources, and have them all where they make the most sense? Diversity and redundancy is far better than a monopoly won by falsehoods.
Keep in mind that at the core of an LLM is it being a probability autocompletion mechanism using the vast training data is was fed. A fine tuned coding LLM would have data more in line to suit an output of coding solutions. So when you ask for generation of code for very specific purposes, it's much more likely to find a mesh of matches that will work well most of the time. Be more generic in your request, and you could get all sorts of things, some that even look good at first glance but have flaws that will break them. The LLM doesn't understand the code it gives you, nor can it reason if it will function.
Think of an analogy where you Googled a coding question and took the first twenty hits, and merged all the results together to give an answer. An LLM does a better job that this, but the idea is similar. If the data it was trained on was flawed from the beginning, such as what some of the hits you might find on Reddit or Stack Overflow, how can it possibly give you perfect results every time? The analogy is also why a much narrow query for coding may work more often - if you Google a niche question you will find more accurate, or at least more relevant results than if you just try a general search and past together anything that looks close.
Basically, if you can help the LLM hone in its probabilities on the better data from the start, you're more likely to get what may be good code.
The flaw of the question is assuming there is a clear dividing line between species. Evolutionary change is a continuous process. We only have dividing lines where we see differences in long dead ones in the fossil record, or we see enough differences in living ones. The question has no answer, only a long explanation of how that isn't how any of this works.