It's not really factually correct if you want to get pedantic, both brains and llms are called black boxes for different reasons, but this is ultimately irrelevant. Your motive may be here or there, the rhetorical effect is the same. You are arguing very specifically that we cant know llm's dont hae similar features (world model) to human brains because "both are black boxes", which is wrong for a few reasons, but also plainly an equivalence. It's rude to pretend everyone in the conversation is as illiterate as wed need to be to not understand this point.
Where is the world model you maintain? Can you point to it? You can't - because the human mind is very much a black box just the same way as LLM's are.
something being a black box is not even slightly notable a feature of relation, it's a statement about model detail; the only reason you'd make this comparison is if you want the human brain to seem equivalent to llm.
for example, you didnt make the claim: "The inner workings of Europa are very much a black box, just the same way as LLM's are"
Not understanding the brain (note: said world model idea is something of a fabrication by the ai people, brains are distributed functional structures with many parts and roles) is not an equality with "ai" make. brains and llm do not function in the same way, this is a lie peddled by hype dealers.
This is generally in line with ice, the drivetrain efficiencies anymore are in the high 90%s (applies to ev too), so from engine out you are losing basically everything to drag.
no, i mean theoretically who knows, but practically no. compressing something to be more dense than a solid is energy intense. you are surpassing the bond energy of moleculesto do it. second, compressing enough osmium is going to take less, but still bigajoules, of energy. the compressive stress is immense. anything that could hold thht stress is much too big to fit in the package.
you can poison the well this way too, ultimately, but it's important to note: generally it is not llm cleaning this up, it's slaves. generally in terrible conditions.
it kinda does both, there are more mice but the more naturalized habitat gives them more places to hide that isnt your house, especially in the spring/summer fall, but winter too. I dont know, others get mice all the time anyway, we occasionally do, i dont know if it's an improvement or not. I do know that a well sealed house in the woods with totally native habitat for acres (not mine sadly, lol) has far fewer pests than in any suburb house so i think there's merit.
they are indeed very alien it's true. And i suppose, i just dont really want people thinking bees are immune to smoke or other airborne toxin.
Another fun fact is that bee flight muscles are directly saturated with oxygen and have a power density comparable to helicopters. The whole bee in flight is comparable to a car. Crazy creatures.
am i the only one who notices that this logic makes no sense? it doesnt matter that they have no lungs, they still are susceptible to both heat and airborn toxins, they perform gas exchange. They lived because the heat and smoke were below lethal toxic levels for them.
The light diffracts before it reaches the lens so this wont help. Also, refraction doesnt change the wavelength of light, it just takes time to bounce and re-emit through the medium.
Both blue and green eyes in humans and blues and many greens in vertebrates are structural, yeah. Yes the structural coloring could be recreated in fur or skin. (noting that many mammals do structural IR effects in their fur, famously polar bears)
more accurately, orange pigments are readily available. Nothing fundamentally stops mammals (or anything else) from developing a green. Note for example many animals have green eyes.
the diffraction limit of a lens cant really be circumvented optically, it's a fundamental limit of light due to being waves. so some insane refractive index wont help.
many eyes are near the diffraction limit (for human sized eyes the diffraction limit is around 20/10 vision). To have better accuity you factually need larger eyes. Although it's the size of the lens that matters more than pupil size strictly. The pupil modifies the lens optics but the lens determines the limit.
160 million active users is quite literally worse than many mobile games developed for a tens of, maybe hundreds of thousands of, usd. 160 million active users for 40 billion funding (they have needed more than this, but i cant be assed to go tally their funding) means theyve spent $250 per user, and their costs only grow as people use it. That is not including the massive server time subsidies Azure has provided them. This is not a profitable company and never will be.
"Block Blast" on the google play store has 40 million daily active users, 160 million monthly, and the studio has around 30 people. Its revenue from ads alone is in the tens of millions per month if this case study is accurate. Oai claims their monthly revenue in the hundreds of millions… with operating costs at greater hundreds of millions. oai profit is negative, with no signs of improving without entirely changing their business plan.
It's not really factually correct if you want to get pedantic, both brains and llms are called black boxes for different reasons, but this is ultimately irrelevant. Your motive may be here or there, the rhetorical effect is the same. You are arguing very specifically that we cant know llm's dont hae similar features (world model) to human brains because "both are black boxes", which is wrong for a few reasons, but also plainly an equivalence. It's rude to pretend everyone in the conversation is as illiterate as wed need to be to not understand this point.