swansont

jalaldn has been banned for repeatedly spamming us with topics that had been closed.

“with the new upgrade, called Mars Global Localization, Perseverance can match its own panoramic imagery to orbital terrain maps onboard, calculate its precise position and continue along its planned route without waiting for Earth-based confirmation. An onboard algorithm performs the comparison in about two minutes and can pinpoint the rover's location to within roughly 10 inches (25 centimeters), all without assistance from human planners” https://www.space.com/space-exploration/mars-rovers/nasas-perseverance-rover-now-has-its-own-gps-on-mars-weve-given-the-rover-a-new-ability

Moderator NoteThere’s nothing here that rises to the level required for discussion in Speculations. Your previous thread on this was closed and you were told not to bring it up again. That was in clear language, not in some cryptic message with new words.

First one certainly looks fake/AI. No vertical exhaust hitting the ground and disrupting anyone’s pants as it flies by. Second one should be kicking up sand.

https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english Passages written in the period, in 100-year increments “Before the mid 1700s, there was no such thing as standardized spelling. Writers spelled words as they heard them, or as they felt like spelling them, which is why the 1500s and 1600s sections look so alien, even when the words, underneath the surface, are ones you know.” “As you move backwards in time, the French and Latin loanwords that make up an enormous proportion of the Modern English vocabulary grow fewer and fewer. When you pass 1250, they drop off almost altogether. Where a modern writer would say he underwent torture, a 1200-era writer must say that he suffered pinunge instead”

I think there’s a thread for that

It’s how politics works, though, and law enforcement is partly political.

For what purpose? I assume you meant “dedicated”; do you mean it automatically renders the code, or that only equations would be posted? If it’s the former, I don’t know if that’s possible. If the latter, I don’t see that it’s practical.

There’s literature supporting the idea that some people on the spectrum can’t form criminal intent (mens rea) but I have no idea how one makes the argument for him in particular. Reading his biography in wikipedia I see he served in the Royal Navy as a pilot and commanded a warship, and held many positions of responsibility. Denying all wrongdoing seems to be a common tactic that we here in the US are seeing all the time with the Epstein class currently in charge. But the feeling I get is it’s not a matter of having the capacity to know right from wrong, it’s not caring, reinforced by a life of being shielded from consequences

I’m most familiar with what the navy did, but any large organization would be susceptible to it; all it takes is having disparate and specialized job tasks, and management mediocre enough to not know what the rank-and-file are doing.

That’s a big objection and it’s not just AI - a lot of tech has been pushed out as a product that should still be in beta test. Self-driving is another; people have admitted they need the data from an unready product out in the world in order to improve it. I’ve bought computer games that were/are doing rather significant “gameplay adjustment” updates for years after the initial release. I think there wouldn’t be this kind of pushback if AI actually did its job reliably. Another issue is the breadth of the rollout, the desire to put it seemingly everywhere, without regard to how appropriate it is. I’ve seen that happen elsewhere. When the US Navy rolled out a standardized computer system ~20 years ago (to make the IT department job easier), we had a similar resistance, because it seemed like it was a decision made by someone who only needed the Microsoft Office products on a Windows machine to do their job, and they decided that’s all that everyone else needed, too. It’s a lack of awareness of how others use the technology, which is a form of managerial incompetence

I wonder how long this has been building, with AI just being the latest tool. As came up in a discussion last year, Cliff/Monarch notes summaries of books have been around for at least 50-60 years, but you could ask questions that got into enough detail/nuance that you could tell who read the book. I can see how AI can be abused for essays/papers, but I’m not sure how AI comes into play for exams I saw some articles talking about bringing back blue-book exams (i.e. handwritten work) which suggests that academia had gotten away from that, and I was surprised. What have they been doing to test students?

Perhaps the question should be at what age is it appropriate to become a parent, since that’s a common and predictable result of sexual activity?

LOL You don’t cite a source for this, and what I found disagrees https://menlovc.com/perspective/2025-mid-year-llm-market-update/ Anthropic 32%, OpenAI 25%, Google 20% Further, https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-center-energy-needs-are-upending-power-grids-and-threatening-the-climate “About 56% of the electricity used to power data centers nationwide comes from fossil fuels.” Data center alley in Northern VA is a prominent example of using grid energy. Memphis TN has been in the news for using methane gas generators, without proper approvals. You mentioned cloud services in your examples. Not all data is related to LLM use.

The faulty generalization fallacy. One example doesn’t rebut all the others. “It did not rain on Tuesday” does not mean “It rained last week” is false.

Because electric heat is always cheaper and more environmentally friendly? Because we never want to cool our houses? Cloud storage is not AI. Can be ≠ is

One site I scanned said it was part of her thesis, so it might be a while. Like I said, organ viability after death is known, so I’m not sure how controversial that aspect is. The assertion about consciousness probably is, but a conference talk isn’t evidence. I don’t know how you could test this - there’s a fairly short time limit to reviving people after blood and oxygen to the brain are cut off. I wonder what the Q&A was like for the talk.

Moderator NoteDiscussion of your ideas need to take place in your thread, not anybody else’s, per rule 2.5 and 2.10, and rule 3 of the speculations forum.

I think it varies with the individual, but the conundrum is that people who aren’t mature enough to decide might decide it’s appropriate. Which is probably why it’s left as a legal determination, much like age limits for voting and drinking.

“Speaking at a science conference in Arizona” It’s curious that it’s not named. … It was at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Phoenix, Arizona, according to other reports. There might not yet be a published paper; we presented new/ongoing results at conferences all the time. Apparently she looked at near-death experience reports, so people were technically dead but then revived, so I’m not sure that this is exactly a revelation We harvest organs after death, obviously, and they’re still viable for a period of time

Moderator NoteSome posts have been moved back to the Epstein files thread; this thread is not a discussion of that topic

In your expert opinion, or some expert resource you can point to? In my non-expert view, it sounds like it could very well be the result of trauma bonding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_bonding https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/trauma-bonding

As others have noted, there’s issue of age differential, not just age, but age ties into issues of consent and possible manipulation/coercion. There is a point at which one cannot consent, or be expected make decision of a certain magnitude, and we acknowledge this in other areas of life. In the US you can’t make certain medical decisions or vote until you’re 18 and yet the age of consent in many states is lower, as is the age to get married.

Too much AI is making it into your posts. You’re posting slop that doesn’t answer the question; LLMs don’t understand anything, so it’s not surprising. We’re looking for science to discuss, because this is a science discussion board. What you offer isn’t science. It’s a narrative. We asked for evidence and a testable model, and you didn’t produce them. Don’t bring this topic up again.

This is cool, because among the hurdles for a Th-229 clock is the difficulty in generating enough light for the transition. “For most nuclear transitions, the energy difference between the two states lies in the kilo-electron-volt to mega-electron-volt range. Consequently, such transitions are inaccessible to today’s high-precision lasers, which can deliver photons of typically a few electron volts in energy. A long-known exception is the transition between the ground state and first excited state of thorium-229 nuclei. Indirect measurements over the past 50 years have gradually pinned down that transition’s energy difference to only about 8.4 eV. As a result, this transition is being actively investigated as a candidate for developing a nuclear clock.” https://physics.aps.org/articles/v19/19 There’s a bit of boilerplate cheerleading in this, like it’s a press release. Any improvement to GPS a tenuous claim unless you’re talking about a pretty long horizon, and any suggestion of a portable frequency standard relies on the portability of the laser and not just the container for the atoms.