They are also pretty bad at navigating mazes (which can be somewhat similar in spirit to text adventures where you need to navigate through text): https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.20395
I stopped drinking coffee for four or five years. I drank a lot before. You do realise that it has a strong psychoactive effect, at least it did for me.
I still don't drink coffee, but I started experimenting with paraxanthine and I absolutely love it (paraxanthine is the primary metabolite of caffeine and is also a stimulant). I feel like it gives me most of the benefit of caffeine with very few downsides (no jitters, no crash, exits your system faster).
That's where the humanizers come in. These are solutions that take LLM generated text and make it sound human written to avoid detection.
The principle of training them is quite simple. Take an LLM and reward it for revising text so that it doesn't get detected. Reinforcement learning takes care of the rest for you.
It makes it look like the presentation is rushed or made last minute. Really bad to see this as the first plot in the whole presentation. Also, I would have loved to see comparisons with Opus 4.1.
Edit: Opus 4.1 scores 74.5% (https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-1). This makes it sound like Anthropic released the upgrade to still be the leader on this important benchmark.
You would think that Springer did the due diligence here, but what is the value of a brand such as Springer if they let these AI slops through their cracks?
This is an opportunity for brands to sell verifiability, i.e., that the content they are selling has been properly vetted, which was obviously not the case here.
Taurine deficiency has been claimed to be a driver of aging [1]. The claim from the news article about it possibly being related to cancer seems like it needs a much stronger justification.
It has happened to me on very large files and when you've had a long composer session. I usually check every file that is being modified for large removals because of this. It's a bit annoying, but something I can tolerate.
The original website is a news report of an article. The one he posted is from a peer-reviewed journal which has a much higher standard of reporting. The information there is reported by scientists with expertise in the field. You cannot expect the same level of rigour from journalists that try to sensationalise findings to get more clicks.
However, for many viral posts, many of the responses have nothing to do with the original post. It looks like bots/users that are riding off of the success of the viral post in an attempt to get more views/likes/followers. It's a sad behaviour that lessens the experience of the platform.
I love cmd+tab on a mac to switch between applications, but I was missing a feature to switch between windows of the same application. Alt+tab solves that in the same manner Windows does.