kerabatsos

To be fair, a significant number of real interactions with humans gives me the exact same no-one-is-there impression.

I’d argue a well-informed plan allows for creative adaptation.

Former professional distance runner here. I’ve not read the study but I can comment on the statement regarding training at low to moderate intensities - I can agree that low intensities have an important role in endurance training but a lot of training is at or near threshold levels which can be on the moderate to high levels of intensity. Easy efforts are critical but there is a lot of effort, in a “normal” training segment, that are at or near high intensity effort.

Finally, someone said it. 20+ years in software and my productivity and velocity is wild right now.

People put a lot of faith in human “guardrails”, standards, etc. But the same argument could be made that trusting human experts without discernment is as dangerous as trusting AI or Google or whatever other non-human source. It’s always been the case.

The mindset must be that if you use AI (which I happen to advocate for) you are also responsible for the output, if you use the output publicly. AI is obviously very powerful if used responsibly - the human is responsible for it once it is used - however it’s used.

But perhaps we should regard it as a major achievement.

God bless you for referencing that film.

Why do you believe it will fail? Because some companies will not be profitable?

How is that different than human reasoning?

They will, but much much much slower.

Is this a serious comment? Covid killed over a million people in the United States alone.

Ha! I wouldn’t count on it.