thedeadwalking4242 @ thedeadwalking4242 @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

443

Joined

2 yr. ago

Exactly, plus human consciousness might not be the most effective way to do it, might be easier less resource intensive ways.

Honestly I believe AGI is currently a compute resource problem less than a software problem. A paper came out awhile ago showing that individual neurons in the human brain displayed behavior like decently sized deep learning models. If this is true the number of nodes required for artificial neural nets to even come close to human like intelligence maybe astronomically higher then predicted.

for many years AI referred to that type of technology. It is not infact AGI but AI historically in the technical field refers more towards decision trees, and classification/ linear regression models.

The argument "it just predicts the most likely next word" while true massively under values what it even means to predict the next word or token. Largely these predictions are based on sentences and ideas the model has trained on from its data sets. It's pretty intelligent if you think about it. You read a text book then when you apply the knowledge or take a test you use what you read to form a new sentence in relation to the context of the question or problem. For the models "text prediction" to be correct it has to understand certain relationships between complex ideas and objects to some capacity. Yes it absolutely is not as good as human intelligence. But what it's doing is much more advanced then text to type on your phone keyboard. It's a step in the right direction, over hyped right now but the hype is funneling cash into research. The models are already getting more advanced. Right now half of what it says is hot garbage but it can be pretty accurate.

It's really not consumer ready though, I've tried desperately to use OnePlus and like devices as daily drivers but it's just not there yet sadly. The more people that try tho the better off we will be

Different lenses in your eye and your camera change the focal length

Again this works on small scale but does not fit power a large scale modern city and does not scale with our energy consumption needs over time. HVDC Is great when it's a state away or less but what happens when it's 2? 3? Four states away? There is still energy loss. Nuclear is long term, energy independence that scales with our energy needs. Nuclear does have long term radioactive but if processed correctly is not really a burden. Untimely it will be a combination of all these techniques that save us but what I'm saying is that for base load power. Nothing right now beat nuclear in terms of convenience, raw power output, energy independence, and reliability. Modern reactors are safe, advanced, and capable of generating more energy than we even consume.

For base load it is

Solar is limited per region and does not provide stable high capacity power. It cannot serve for a base load power source and can't even be used as a substitute for base power in some regions where it is needed most. Nuclear especially thorium based reactors are proven to work, and have been since the 60s. It is the future for our base line power needs. The only reason we are pulling away is propaganda and fear mongering. It can be dangerous but it is a local danger. CO2 emissions endanger the entire global population and will end modern civilization if we do not switch from fossil fuels.

It still cost billions on billions to build these prototypes. The working reactors will be the same way. We need cheap easy to access energy now not later. The earth is dying and will continue too if we don't take immediate action. Build the nuclear plants now keep researching fusion. But we cannot really that a working model will be available to us in the near future

You probably don't need pis then you need a real server

Fusion reactors will ALWAYS be 30 years away. Not only that they will concentrate energy resources with in the very wealthiest of nations because they are EXTREMELY hard to build and expensive. Molten salt reactors or even light water reactors are the solution too our energy needs. They are available now and the waste can be managed despite the endless fear mongering. Fusion is a waste of time for now. Even fission reactors are wildly expensive to build and you think we as a species can move on to fusion reactors in the near future? Changing mildly radioactive value or dealing with corrosive materials is 100000x less of an engineering feat than achieving cheap and reliable nuclear fusion. The reason it's not wide spread is because counties love their oil and have fear mongered fission so that little to no research goes that way. Fusion is a pipe dream

Nixos is amazing just saying

X is abandonware and full of security issues probably time to switch to maintained aoftware

Caffine is not nearly as addictive as nicotine. And to conflate the too is a fat ass lie. I've quit both caffeine was three days of headaches at most. Quiting nicotine was my skin crawling and wanting to yank out my teeth for months. It's been more then two years and I still crave it. They are not the same you are exactly the type of nicotine addict I talk about. They are absolutely not the same

They don't ban it because most of Congress chews smokes or takes money

It's like people in this thread don't realize how massively addictive nicotine is? I see addicts all the time try to excuse their addictions with every excuse in the book. I was addicted once. It took every part of my soul to quit that shit. nicotine is a mistake many make and don't come back from and pretend it their choice shit should be band. Just due to it's addictive nature. Banned for the same reason lotterys are generat only owned by the state. Shits is a a great investment. People will kill themselves or others to give you money

Same here, been using it 2+ weeks only thing that comes close and sometimes it's better

What does this mean

That's the point of customizable settings