Details like this are really just a distraction. Do you really think the average respondent understands these technical details, or have any good reason to memorize the specs of all rifles? The focus on the AR-15 is not because of any risk associated with that particular gun, but because most people understand that this is a semi-auto rifle. There is no other model of gun that will have that kind of widespread recognition.
Drawing up these very silly technical arguments is a willful ignorance of the underlying issue: What is the limit of deadly force we should allow one person to lawfully own? We don't let people own tactical nukes. We don't need to argue over thermonuclear or hydrogen nukes. We don't need to understand quantum mechanics to regulate these devices. The technical details do not matter. The potential body count is what matters. And so it is with guns, which happen to occupy that grey area where reasonable people disagree on an acceptable level of lethality. You do not need to know all the different models of gun to be killed by one, so we should not require such technical knowledge when engaging in discourse around their regulation.
Is no one going to acknowledge that a huge portion of the American electorate actually supports Israel's genocide? Part of living in a democracy is accepting that official policy reflects some mixture of the views of the electorate. If the US electorate is still mixed in its view of Israel then the official US policy should be mixed as well (which it is).
I will use my vote to push for an end to the genocide, the release of hostages, and a stable 2-state solution. But I will not abandon core democratic values just because I find myself in the minority.
You linked a paper on planning in LLMs. Planning is largely in the domain of reinforcement learning. The paper you linked conflates reasoning with planning, alongside the obviously biased prose, so the author really doesn't seem credible. I prefer nuanced and careful evaluations such as: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949719123000298
Here I think you are behind on the literature. LLMs can infer and reason, and there are whole series of papers that evaluate LLMs for these properties the exact same way we evaluate humans. So if you can't trust the metrics, then you cannot even assert that humans can reason and infer and understand.
TikTok enacted a very obvious influence campaign to fight this legislation that resulted in congressional phone lines becoming jammed. So what China can do is directly influence our laws.
LLMs do not look stuff up (except when they have an API that allows them to), but I think OP's point still stands. The statistical next token predictor metaphor is useful , but in many regards that's what text and language are. If you can understand that certain words are linked to certain other words, then you should be able to appreciate that certain groups of words can be associated in a way that is functionally the same as data.
I have not memorized the pytorch documentation, but I can use what I understand about pytorch and other libraries to infer specific aspects of the library that I am not familiar with. Functionally, this is no different than if I accessed the documentation directly. If I communicate this information to others I have functioned as a data repository. The repository works on a more abstract and error-prone level, but it works nonetheless.
Here is another very concrete example: LLMs know George Washington's birthday. Not because they look up that information, but because of the learned associations between George Washington, birthday, and his actual date of birth.
Travelling forward in time could also kill everyone... Our adaptive immune systems are developed somatically and purifying selection is nonzero in humans.
Lol these are grants. Guess what, we've been funding research into corona viruses ever since the first SARS outbreak...which came from a wet market in Wuhan.
What you need to link is physical evidence showing that COVID-19 was in the lab prior to the outbreak, or that the COVID-19 sequence is comprised of two or more sequences from viruses stockpiled in the lab (it is a surveillance lab).
You do not have that evidence. You do not understand how viral labs work. You do not even understand how science funding works. You are the kind of person that believes a highly controlled lab environment with trained personnel is more likely to spread disease than a dense market place where known viral reservoirs are slaughtered in open air by any moron with a blade.
People seem to think that a prior opinion about the dependent automatically means that a potential juror cannot be impartial. All that is required is that the juror can render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial. Plenty of people with strong opinions about Trump himself can still be impartial jurors.
I will not use this comment to weigh in on the fairness of the University's decision, I am just going to make the point that USC is a private university and is not held to the same free speech standards as the University of California school system.
But you are not reporting the underlying probability, just the guess. There is no way, then, to distinguish a bad guess from a good guess. Let's take your example and place a fully occluded shape. Now the most probable guess could still be a full circle, but with a very low probability of being correct. Yet that guess is reported with the same confidence as your example. When you carry out this exercise for all extrapolations with full transparency of the underlying probabilities, you find yourself right back in the position the original commenter has taken. If the original data does not provide you with confidence in a particular result, the added extrapolations will not either.
People buying into anti-Hillary propaganda is what delivered us Trump. Go ahead and read up and how she has chosen to dedicate her time and resources throughout her adult life. See if that matches your current view of her. Everyone claims to want politicians that aren't corrupt, but Hillary is a lesson in how much we hate those very politicians.
Except the most relevant part: it is owned by a hostile foreign government.