upsidesinclude

This whole argument hinges on believing the opinion of the writer, who tries to assure you that he is very informed and you don't need any data to get in the way of the message.

While he may or may not be accurate in his assessment at this time, he manages to gloss over any number of historical factors that have brought us to this junction.

Continuing to invest in nuclear is a good idea. There is money to do so and yes, the military provides much of that. And they control an immense amount of fissile material. Wouldn't it be great if there was a future where that material, which has been mined at great cost, refined at immense cost and handled at astounding cost could be used to benefit the populace that have afforded it?

The huge arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world only has one way to make its exit. I'd rather we continued to work on an alternative.

Haha, this is funny because everyone is talking about this as if it is designed to be like the LLMs we have access to.

The training parameters will be the databases of info scooped up and integrated into profiles of every person and their entire digital footprint, queriable and responsive to direct questioning

Toyota has very recently publicized their commitment to hybrid technology as it is the only foreseeable outcome for mass adoption and transition off of gasoline.

That's not opinion, that's their position.

This is pretty reasonable considering

Appropriate username

Not "wrong", dubious.

It is quite appropriate to call such declarations dubious.

Your explanation is fine, however, this 'no evidence' refrain that has been used to mislead the public has gone on long enough. At this point when that is in print the assumption may as well be the opposite.

Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past and the clear major difference is full attention grabbing effect of media. But no, no, it isn't the 'screen time'

>Human-subject testing is needed to test this hypothesis

This is a hypothesis and one that seems poorly born considering quercetin is available over the counter as a supplement and in no way causes headaches.

It is however, amazing at bolstering the immune system

While the latter part of your statement is reasonable, it is also only opinion. Many people would prefer a less technically advanced society. This forum, for instance, is about as simple as it gets and that is to it's credit.

The initial point misses a fairly significant consideration though. A huge number of advancements are publicly funded. That public funding turns into private profit. People largely unaware of that fact, recently were made aware with the massive vaccine development spending that led to record shattering profits for pharma companies. To cite just one prominent example in the last few years.

Edit: shout out to text only

This is sarcasm?

>Among large-bodied mammals, humans are especially pathetic, weak, and vulnerable

This alone is such a wildly unfounded statement. Maybe the author is a typical, academic soft body.

I couldn't really keep reading beyond this point as the author is comically uncritical of their own beliefs

Humans are wildly dangerous, vengeful, intelligent and resourceful.

>in applications where text isn't meant to be read word-for-word, and the entire response is expected before proceeding to the next step in the workflow, this can pose a significant issue.

Your take seems to narrow the application of AI chat down to customer service.

Taking a broader view, AI chat or really LLMs have a very wide range of applications. As discussed in the article, script and code producing AI is not meant to be "read" so much as utilized post generation.

Either way, the reality is that just like any other advancement, this will slowly start to become integral to many business networks and workflow models, all having no interface with the consumer. The current fascination is wearing thin for the unimaginative who've asked a few generic questions to ChatGPT and then failed to recognize any applications of that product in their own life.

All the better, but the more products built now means the more likely something is produced that niche markets are looking to buy.

It's very wealthy people in the first world and very poor people in the third world.

Poor people will stand up and walk inland.

The rich will do anything they can to convince everyone else to pay for their property losses

This should be really bigger news.

Seperate news reports include claims that the company was "developing COVID19 tests" among other things. This could very well have been funded through pandemic relief grants.

The owners of the building claim no knowledge of the goings on there.

Clearly they were engaged in some nefarious work with extremely minimal safety protocol.

>90% no longer have to pretend to give a shit what the 10% think anymore

The 10% that do all your work for you?

I guess that's seems pretty shortsighted. When I go to work, I expect the asshole (that just watches me get shit done) to be decent company, worth a laugh or really willing to grab things I need.

If you can't bother to 'pretend' then I'm going to stop pretending for you too. I guess we'll see who gets to keep getting paid.

You know, have some decency.

The other comments pretty well address both of those points.

I'd be glad to see more information as regards the conditions which lead to that conclusion