changoplatanero

they are saying that the body produced to to fight parasites like worms. these were a big problem for most of evolutionary history. With modern living standards, our immune systems don't encounter many parasites so they get "bored" and over react to harmless things like food. Evolution hasn't had time to adjust to the new living standards since its only been a few generations.

i'm not an expert but i think the word expansion here is referring to techniques they use to spread everything out in order to make it easier to see. someone told me that they use the same material that baby diapers are made out of which expands when you soak it in water.

But then they stopped cause the marginal value of the information they got from gmail was not as large as it used to be. The information from email receipts from purchases was particularly valuable but major retailers stopped providing that in email to limit how much info google could observe.

The last section of the press release was definitely written by AI. I'm talking about the section that starts with "Finding the next experiment worth doing" all the way to the end.

yes back then the game was hard partly because you couldn't remember all of your opponents pieces that you had seen. An AI would never forget though.

Of course, not everything needs to be decided by the FAA. Sometimes they could let people make decisions for themselves.

But they can’t do this unless you agree to enable training on your data. They would never train on raw user data. Only people who have consented and only after de identification.

Not sure what you are seeing in that tweet that gives you the impression that the toggle does nothing.

When there are no pairs, its certainly true that the first element of each pair comes from A. Just like if there are no living dinosaurs its true that all living dinosaurs speak English.

Say more about how citadel made this happen with their trading?

How come legislators want to stop social media companies from using their power to manipulate consumers, but aren’t as interested in other industries doing the same? Like imagine how much harm is caused by the luxury fashion industry manipulating people to spend $20,000 on ugly leather bags? Or the jewelry industry in getting people to buy shiny rocks? Or sports gambling companies? That money could have been used for something good.

I’m obviously biased. But my point is that the guy that wrote the linked article had preexisting biases too.

This can be because the summary model just picked the output from one of the sub agents.

For pro mode the agents worked independently and only when they all finished did a new agent take a look at everything to merge the work into a single response. The new thing involves subagents that have been trained to cooperatively pursue a task and are allowed to communicate with each other along the way.

All that work I did for my PhD and I could have been studying this topic instead...