f4uCL9dNSnQm

I find it interesting that we are closer to regrowing teeth than hair. At least there was human clinical test for TRG-035. Is it just cause hair transplant is "good enough" stopgap solution?

Last time I used GPT-4.5 to analyze blood results it gave different output if I uploaded it as 2 instead of 3 separated CSV files. It was both amazing experience: clear and easy to understand statements, and list of most common causes. And terrifying: "What about X?", "You ar absolutely right, there where X results included, disregard everything I wrote above, here is the new analysis".

So for me non-deterministic means unpredictable. Yes, there was nothing random or non-deterministic in that case, I could repeat both scenarios multiple times and get same results again. But the result is affected by something I didn't expect to matter. That damages the trust in tool, no matter how we call it.

Do we count Google's search AI overview? Because it is shoved in face of million, every day, and it really is only slight improvement over Clippy.

OpenAI might actually survive, even if investors lose significant part of their investment. It those those companies that took out loans to invest in "AI" or took overpriced shares as a payment that are getting wiped out.

Isn't it already quite bad? I remember HN post about small company where employees' private accounts got terminated for "due to a prior violation or an association with a previously-terminated Google Play Developer account".

I wanted to complain how Reuters says close to nothing about Poolside in that news article, but Poolside's own web page is as enigmatic as it gets.

There is no disagreement about that. But the simulation hypothesis claims that is is more likely that what we perceive as reality is a simulation, run by someone else, than that we are in "real" world.

I think it is worse hypothesis than even Drake's equation - there, at least we know all factors, we just have no idea what their value is and with sample size of 1, the current uncertainly is like 40+ orders of magnitude. That still brings us closer to "is there inteligent life in universe" answer than we ever got with "is this universe a simulation".

It is hard to even disprove that we aren't a Boltzmann brain that hallucinated entire reality. Assuming the simulation is perfect(or at lest consistent) the only way to falsify it is to get some impossible estimates for required CPU/memory/storage. I think the whole "if simulations are possible, multiple ones will be created" falls apart when 1 second of running simulation requires several years of compute.

This has to be equivalent of "Long Island Iced Tea Corp" renaming to "Long Blockchain Corp."

I had exact same issues with "Uber".