jfarina

It's awkwardly phrased and doesn't really say what it intends to (though, the meaning is obvious after reading it a second or third time).

As for it being imprecise, it doesn't talk about any specific software that has any compatibility issues. It dismisses the topic out of hand.

WHile this is cool, I can't imagine that this provides a universal fit. It seems like they did a lot to tailor it to their dog.

Maybe because poor diet has been linked to alzheimers?

More complicated than when? You used to have kids because you needed more hands to work the farm and a good number of them died young.

Why are you asking them to cite something for that statement? Are you questioning whether it's the foundation for intelligence or whether LLMS understand goals and consequences?

That's not relevant to the comment you replied to.

What strategy is that?

Seriously. Can I copyright 34 * 712 * 9.2 * pi? I didn't think you could.

They're abolished as long as you can afford the lawyers to fight an underfunded government agency indefinitely.

If they can perform well without reviewing the material, that's a problem with either the performance measure or the material.

And not watching lectures is not the same as not reviewing the material. I generally prefer textbooks and working through proofs or practice problems by hand. If I listen to someone describe something technical I zone out too quickly. The only exception seems to be if I'm able to work ahead enough that the lecture feels like review. Then I'm able to engage.

Can you rebrand a species? Drinking vomitoria sounds less than appetizing.

Is that what a corporate lawyer would say?

I disagree that attackers aren't sophisticated enough to use modified tools. There are entire work campuses dedicated to committing fraud. There's also state sponsored subterfuge. There's no reason to think that bad actors are intrinsically unsophisticated.

They outlined the methodology. They didn't publish their code or the training set.

Boeing. It's literally the post.