Readit NewsOnce we learn from our mistakes we can find the frequencies that do yield the best outcome and at the same time consume (say) ¼ the energy of an incandescent bulb.
Or the minimum set of species yielding optimal outcomes, without the answer being "all of them"
Am I misinterpreting things or there is no overlap with the circumstances argued in the OP? Also, in that case, how do we make quality tradeoffs when all features are necessary for the end product?
The paper was https://openreview.net/forum?id=0ZnXGzLcOg and the problem flagged was "Two authors are omitted and one (Kyle Richardson) is added. This paper was published at ICLR 2024." I.e., for one cited paper, the author list was off and the venue was wrong. And this citation was mentioned in the background section of the paper, and not fundamental to the validity of the paper. So the citation was not fabricated, but it was incorrectly attributed (perhaps via use of an AI autocomplete).
I think there are some egregious papers in their dataset, and this error does make me pause to wonder how much of the rest of the paper used AI assistance. That said, the "single error" papers in the dataset seem similar to the one I checked: relatively harmless and minor errors (which would be immediately caught by a DOI checker), and so I have to assume some of these were included in the dataset mainly to amplify the author's product pitch. It succeeded.
Now that Australia has banned social media, are you going to admit you were wrong? Or just double down and ban phones? If something is "unbelievable" then you better have good evidence for believing it, not just narratives.
If you do go down this route, I found that Plex offered the best deep-linking functionality and would wrap all of your content with that... but it was still somewhat unreliable.
I had plans to build something that for the TV, but having kids means I never had the time. And honestly, that might not have been such a bad thing since it made setting limits easier. I was able to teach my kid to turn the TV off when she was fairly young (and pause more recently), which seems to be enough.
The reason why most people can't just naturally sing well is that singing is not a primary biological function, but a bi-product of a survival mechanism (vocal folds, aka airflow control / airway protection).
The muscles interacting with the vocal folds (thyroarytenoid and cricothyroid) have antagonistic function and work on reflexes rather than control, so the hard part of learning how to sing is to train them to coordinate properly rather than work against each other.