Thanks for the references.
Fair enough, seems there’s not full consensus on this. Just wanted to point out that there is real science backing the idea that saturated fat is bad and it’s not just some contrived myth by a bunch of politicians like OP said.
Just going through the wikipedia and a lot of health organizations still recommend reducing saturated fat including the WHO, the American Heart Association, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the British Dietetic Association, the World Heart Federation, the British National Health Service. These organizations are run by health professionals, not politicians with some vague anti-fat agenda.
Here’s a study going over some meta analysis and finding that
Saturated fat was associated with an 8% increase and trans fats; a 13% increase in total mortality compared with carbohydrate. Thus, replacing 5% of energy from saturated fats with equivalent energy from PUFA ( polyunsaturated fat) and MUFA ( monounsaturated fat ) was associated with estimated reductions in total mortality of 27% and 13%, respectively
It goes on to say that there is less evidence for fat in general to cause cardiovascular disease and mortality, but saturated fat and trans fats definitely do.
Robots don’t get drunk, or distracted, or text, or speed…
Anecdotally, I think the Waymos are more courteous than human drivers. Though waymo seems to be the best ones out so far, idk about the other services.
A full day of … nothing. The senate, and congress as a whole don’t really do anything these days. They pass maybe one consequential bill every 2 years and then go back to sitting on there asses because the filibuster prevents them from doing anything besides “bipartisan” shit like sending weapons to Israel.
All the bad shit that’s been happening is coming from trumps desk with no approval or input from congress.
I guess that’s one advantage of stack overflow, sometimes you need a guy to tell you the entire basis of your question is dumb and wrong.
The actual survey result:
Asked whether “scaling up” current AI approaches could lead to achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI), or a general purpose AI that matches or surpasses human cognition, an overwhelming 76 percent of respondents said it was “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to succeed.
So they’re not saying the entire industry is a dead end, or even that the newest phase is. They’re just saying they don’t think this current technology will make AGI when scaled. I think most people agree, including the investors pouring billions into this. They arent betting this will turn to agi, they’re betting that they have some application for the current ai. Are some of those applications dead ends, most definitely, are some of them revolutionary, maybe
Thus would be like asking a researcher in the 90s that if they scaled up the bandwidth and computing power of the average internet user would we see a vastly connected media sharing network, they’d probably say no. It took more than a decade of software, cultural and societal development to discover the applications for the internet.
it will be relatively easy to strip off
How so? If it’s anything like llm text based “water marks” the watermark is an integral part of the output. For an llm it’s about downrating certain words in the output, I’m guessing for photos you could do the same with certain colors, so if this variation of teal shows up more than this variation then it’s made by ai.
I guess the difference with images is that since you’re not doing the “guess the next word” aspect and feeding the output from the previous step into the next one, you can’t generate the red green list from the previous output.
Depends on where the burden is being placed. If it’s adding more hoops for everyday people to jump through to get what they need, no. If it’s adding more hoops for large organizations and corporations who can hire people for compliance, yes. If it’s just hiring more people on the government side to analyze the existing data, but the forms and processes stay the same on the other end, sure.
Yeah, if you repeated this test with the person having access to a stack exchange or not you’d see the same results. Not much difference between someone mindlessly copying an answer from stack overflow vs copying it from AI. Both lead to more homogeneous answers and lower critical thinking skills.
They seem to be actually doing work. Yeah it’s illegal to work without authorization but by the same logic an undocumented migrant working is illegal. Sure but I wouldn’t argue it’s immoral or would make them a rogue state.
There’s plenty of other horrible shit that north Korea is doing, but I wouldn’t put this in that bucket, this is probably the most honest work they can do considering they’re sanctioned by nearly every country.