Because, unfortunately, he’s basically the reason the movie got made. Nobody was really interested in making the movie, and he basically pushed to get it going with himself as the star.
I also am upset about this fact, and am not planning to watch it.
Of course, he doesn’t even need to add a “bat” prefix to the name, it’s the perfect weapon for him!
Can’t tell if serious or sarcasm
This has to do with how the eggs are sanitized before they’re sold. In places where you need to keep them refrigerated, they’ve been washed in such a way that a protective layer has been removed. In countries that keep their eggs on the counter, this has not been done.
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, right near the end. I don’t want to spoil too much, but I never thought a game mechanic would make me emotional.
Me too. But I’ll just note, I think you have to have played the first Spiderman game and Miles Morales to really get it. It needs that emotional build up over time.
If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago.
It hasn’t been updated in a while, but you might appreciate Cooking for Engineers. All their recipes have a Recipe Card format which diagrams exactly when steps should happen in relation to each other.
Here’s an example: https://www.cookingforengineers.com/recipe/36/Meat-Lasagna/trn
Stuart Semple hates Anish Kapoor. He hates him so much that he requires those who purchase his paints to sign that they are not Anish Kapoor, are not buying them for Anish Kapoor, and will do everything they can to make sure they do not end up in the possession of Anish Kapoor.
I used to, but oddly it’s stopped. I think it may be around the time I stopped having the ringer on by default, which is odd as the phone still vibrates.
At this rate, Bronze Age 2: (non) Electric Boogaloo
You have 2 apples. I give you 2 more. How many apples do you have? Unless you redefine what the numbers or the operators mean, then you now have 4 apples. That’s a truth that is evident in the world and can be verified. That’s what a fact is.
He didn’t suggest we could never determine the age of the moon. He said that science refines it’s methods and gathers new information, and so we may change our estimate of its age based on new evidence.
Only if you completely redefine some aspect of the equation. You’d have to define “5” to actually mean “4” or change the meaning of “+” or “=” in some way that changes the operation. 2+2=4 isn’t just an abstract statement, it’s based on the way the physical world works. If you have 2 apples, and then I give you 2 more, you don’t suddenly have 5 apples because we all decided 2+2=5.
Orwell’s meaning in 1984 wasn’t about belief changing the world, it was about the power of brainwashing and how fascism demands obedience.
…you mean phones?
Basically, physics says that nothing, not even information can actually travel faster than the speed of light. It’s a universal limit that shows up when you do the math on relativity. This concept is called “causality”.
Because of this, FTL communication is probably impossible. Quantum entanglement seems like it could provide a loophole, but it doesn’t actually work that way. To actually use quantum entanglement for communication, it actually needs a confirmation message, which would have to be delivered by a different means (every quantum message needs a non-quantum confirmation). That confirmation would be bound by the speed of light, thus preserving causality.
This is a very very rough description based on my memory, so some details may be a little off, but it should cover the gist. This article goes into more detail:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-entanglement-faster-than-light/
Edit: After reading, the answer is more that attempting to impart information onto the entangled particles to send a message necessarily breaks the entanglement and thus does not transmit the information to the other side. Entangling the particles makes their states related to each other, but only at the time of entanglement, and anything that changes either particle (including measuring it) will break the entanglement going forward.
I agree with most of the other comments here. Is actual AGI something to be worried about? I’m not sure. I don’t know if it’s even possible on our current technology path.
Based on what I know, it’s almost certainly not going to come from the current crop of LLMs and related research. Despite many claims, they don’t actually think or reason. They’re just really complicated statistical models. And while they can do some interesting and impressive things, I don’t think there is any path of progression that will make them jump beyond what they currently are to actual intelligence.
Could we develop something in my lifetime (the next 50-ish years or so for me)? Maybe. I think slim chances without a major shift, and I think it would take a public effort akin to the Manhattan Project and the Internet to achieve, but it’s possible. In the next 5 years? Definitely not, some random, massive, lucky break notwithstanding.
As others have said here, even without AGI, current capitalist practices are already using the limited capabilities of LLMs to upend the labor market and put lots of people out of a job. Even when the LLMs can’t really replace the people effectively. But that’s not a problem with AI, it’s a problem with capitalism that happens with any kind of advancement. They’ll take literally any excuse to extract extra value.
In summary, I wouldn’t worry about AGI. There’s so many other things that are problems now, and are already existential threats, that worrying about this big old “maybe in 50 years” isn’t really worth your time and energy.
Except, it is mostly scat/jibberish! Just in Finnish! Most of the song is nonsense lyrics.
But…why? Popping the cork is fun and festive, and considering most people only have that experience a handful of times in their lives, why try to stifle that little joy?
Yeah, I think in terms of a regularly scheduled passenger transport, something like a runabout or even larger could be considered a “shuttle” by civilian standards.
I met my fiancee at 31, and I only had one real relationship before that and was single for over 10 years. Just because you’ve been unsuccessful so far doesn’t mean you’re forever alone.
Chemical castration is a pretty extreme reaction. I would suggest you interrogate why you want to do this, like at the deepest levels. Removing your libido won’t keep you from being lonely.
You say you were in therapy for 7 years. What kind? Was it all with the same therapist? Maybe you need a different therapist, or perhaps an actual psychiatrist or psychologist, or to try a different form of therapy. There’s lots of things to try.
You say you’ve been unsuccessful in dating. What does that mean? You’re focusing on your libido, so does that mean you’re having trouble getting sex, specifically? Is that all you’re focused on in dating? If so, maybe you need to change your approach to dating.