Is a TL;DR available or at least some of the ideas covered? Because after 3 paragraphs it seems the good old "it is actually something resembling a cellular automata" post by Wolfram.
funny paper, I still don't know what was the goal of it. It is evident to anyone that LLM can't perform any meaningful reasoning, why even bothering in building such an infrastructure to test whether it is able to become a "scientist".
I don't get it, what's cool about it? Einstein notation seems good enough for most of the things and they are equivalent. Is there anything interesting (i.e. new) that this notation allow?
it seems to try too hard on proving things have improved by white lying a bit.
Some examples:
* Environment: air quality in most places has continued to improve (and considering the growing evidence on the harms of air pollution, this may well be the single most important item on this whole page), forest area has increased, and more rivers are safe to fish in - yeah except that are only statistics related to USA, not to mention the Detroit area water pollution thing that it is still going on. Or all the PFAS related drama happening recently.
* LASIK surgery has gone from an expensive questionable novelty to a cheap, routine, safe cosmetic surgery - yeah, almost cheap, safe sure, but none of the people I met actually says they'll do it again (sample N=5), for various reasons. Some: they did have to take glasses again after a few years, colors were less vivid, eyes were less hydrated.
* Food, it is nice that fast food aren't shitty anymore, but there are still plenty of contaminations happening (not only in USA but all-over the world). Moreover, the food is becoming worse because of the lack of microsubstances (and soil degradation) as well as the increase in CO2. Agriculture output is damped by climate change.
of course not, none is considering fusion as a reliable workable solution for the 2050 net zero goals. I mean they don't even consider opting out gas and oil until 2040s or even later lol
yes it is an interesting read, however you should know that some of their "facts" are highly speculative and some were proven wrong in the last decade.
I don't know, it is an opinion and it seems kind of well-founded (i.e. there's no evidence for groundbreaking research on OpenAI part except for scaling things up).
I don't understand why investing money in something that it is reliable and not requiring major reworks on the electric grid would be beneficial, incredible! I am more baffled than you.
also, in case you didn't know sweden doesn't have a huge amount of sun (especially in winter), wind is more affordable but you can't rely on a unique energy source.
what a laughable sentence, there have been at least 2 near misses last year between starlink satellites and Tiangong. Also, if there's a collision, the smaller parts and debris would remain in orbit far longer than expected (hence causing more incidents).