Readit NewsWhat would a Denesovian say about this?
"Not much", outside of what they'd contributed to any surviving lines.
To your point, whether we're winning or losing very much depends on how we define our team.
People are persistently presented with perils (plagues, parasites, pollution, power-hungry politicians, propaganda, plutonium-powered projectiles, etc...) and humanity keeps finding a way through (though certainly at great personal and population-wide cost sometimes).
Some pretty serious chokepoints in the full history (including research suggesting that something reduced our ancestors numbers by ~99% a little under a million years ago) and yet this particular strain remains.
All I want is to not be forced to irritate my customers about something that nobody cares about. It doesn't have to be complicated. It is how the internet was for all of its existence until a few years ago.
And it happens to subsidize the tools you'd like to you use.
Whether you as a simple shopkeeper are aware of that or not doesn't change the equation or make anything buzzwordy.
Your choice to use frameworks subsidized by surveillance capitalism doesn't need to preclude my ability to agree to participate does it?
Maybe a handy notification when I visit your store asking if I agree to participate would be a happy compromise?
I agree with you, though - causal explanations are compelling and confer a sense of certainty and humans seem to like that, but it doesn't make them necessary.
As noted therein, you need to request a download well before you actually delete your account, since the former requires to batch work to complete and the latter will cancel any in-progress requests.
But it can't be quite "the same deal", because gravity obeys the equivalence principle, and electromagnetism does not. (Nor do the other known fundamental interactions.) The paper does not appear to address this at all.
From the conclusion: >Charge is therefore to be understood as a local compression of the metric in the spacetime, which relates to longitudinal waves as described in [12]. This provides some aesthetical features into the model, as electromagnetism seems to be orthogonal to gravity in the sense that current theory of gravity is a theory based on metric compatible connections.
Given the highly volatile, and legally gray, situation; I'd expect the front line people who usually grant access are at least flagging these requests to their boss, who flags to their boss etc. Is everyone up the chain just giving a shrug and saying "seems legit, give them the access".
Of course people don't want to loose their jobs, but I would have expected someone in a senior leadership position to take a stand in preventing this (unless their all on board?)
Several recent news stories have described situations where the agency head resisted and was removed.
Another advantage of AlphaEvolve was robustness: it was relatively easy to set up AlphaEvolve to work on a broad array of problems, without extensive need to call on domain knowledge of the specific task in order to tune hyperparameters.
In software world "robustness" usually implies "resistance to failures", so I would call this something different, more like "ease of integration". There are many problems where in theory a pre-LLM AI could do it, but you would have to implement all this explicit modeling, and that's too much work.
Like to pick a random problem, why does no superhuman AI exist for most video games? I think most of the difficulty is not necessarily in the AI algorithm, it's that the traditional method of game playing involves programming a model of the game, and for most video games that's an incredible amount of work, too much for someone to do in their spare time.
LLMs, on the other hand, are decent at integrating with many different sorts of systems, because they can just interoperate with text. Not quite good enough at video yet for "any video game" to fall. But a lot of these problems where the difficulty is not "algorithmic" but "integration", the LLM strategy seems promising for cracking.