swansont

What makes you think that nobody who has worked on ai also read up on ant behavior?

That doesn’t answer my question.

While it’s nice to know that you are capable of providing references, they need to be pertinent. The Easterlin paradox is about income and happiness, and my objection is to productivity in response to your proposal about time spent at work. You haven’t made any connection whatsoever. Nor have you demonstrated that this isn’t just more trolling.

ai was not part of the OP, and if you wish to discuss it (now that it’s been split), you need to specify what form of ai you mean. It’s not much better than just complaining about technology when your TV is on the fritz. The original comment was about ChatGPT, and I don’t think that was the idea behind the Asimov story or Star Trek episode

And the goods will just ship themselves, I suppose. Fires will put themselves out. If your job requires you to call someone in a different time zone, it won’t be a problem with them working just an hour or so a day. Everyone will commute during the thin slice of time mass transit is running. It’s not possible for me to take your arguments seriously.

An example from fiction tangential (at best) to the discussion, because it’s fiction - the author can say whatever they want. And if the robot was not using a LLM, it’s not relevant.

30% of a day is 7.2 hours. Most of us spend that sleeping If you mean literal daylight time, which would average ~12 hours, that’s 3.6 hours. So you’re advocating a workday of 8.4 hours. That’s longer than the workday in places with strong worker rights and/or unions. If you don’t have it, a more realistic effort IMO is beefing up worker rights

Is there a point of discussion here?

Any discussion of physics is moot; this is a work of fiction, which doesn’t have to obey the laws of physics. Further, it involves a particular type/school of magic, which most definitely does not. All you can ask is that it be logically self-consistent under some cursory level of scrutiny, to the point you can suspend disbelief, and I think it is. They go back in time and experience the three hours again in a different physical trajectory, and the individuals in the first timeline can observe themselves in the second. The unresolved issue is whether they have freewill in the second pass through the timeline, because there is interaction between them . e.g. since, in the first timeline, they never observe their second-pass selves, they are not free to remain in plain sight in the second pass, but we don’t know what, exactly, compels them to make the right choices and execute the correct actions. When they e.g. throw something, it must hit the target that was struck the first time around. The issue is determinism, not physics.

Moderator NoteAnd explicitly against our rules to do so outside of speculations, and without disclosing it. 2.13 says (emphasis added) AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. In other words, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made. Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions

Thanks. “an immutable reality to be celebrated by the subject and accommodated by the rest of us” seems a tad condescending, and reflects a common attitude, complaining about these people not being invisible, and forcing everyone else to treat them with dignity and respect their rights, because that’s such a burden.

There was a recent article in The Telegraph headlined “How having a disability became cool” with the subheadline “Young women, nicknamed 'sickfluencers', are turning chronic illness into a lifestyle trend and entrenching a culture of economic inactivity” It required an account to read so I didn’t get past that point, but “entrenching a culture of economic inactivity” paints a position of treating a chronic condition as laziness, though I’m not sure if economic inactivity points to not working or not doing our “duty” as consumers

It occurs to me that while we (as a society) often stigmatize chronic mental issues, we tend to understand acute ones, the ones we have experience with or can imagine, such as a break-up in a relationship, being cheated on, loss of a loved one, etc. We know such things have a cause and generally fade in time. But everybody reacts to such things in their own way, and I think people have a harder time anticipating/understanding some reactions since it’s not how they would cope.

Since Trump doesn’t distinguish between personal activity and government, I’d like for countries to do the same and seize his personal assets in compensation for the damage he’s caused the world. It won’t happen in the US (until after he’s out of office) but he has assets everywhere

In addition to addictive behavior, some will look at some ailments as being deserved (e.g. lung cancer for smokers, or injury after reckless behavior) and garner less sympathy than for other physical problems There’s also a history of gender and race biases associated with this. But overall there’s a lack of empathy.

Physical ailments are often more obvious; you can e.g. see that someone has a broken arm. It’s obvious that it’s being treated (cast and sling) and it’s common enough we know there’s a timetable to recovery to near normal. We also have common experience with that kind of injury, or something less serious like a sprain, or can at least imagine what it would be like to spend time without use of an arm, or be hobbled in some way. I think mental issues are much more opaque. We’re less likely to have the experience in common, harder to imagine what it’s like, and the path to getting better is much less clear. We also have the social conditioning of “toughing things out” which we do for minor physical issue (no pain, no gain) so I think less-than-optimal mental health is seen as a character flaw, i.e. weakness, rather than something being broken. You wouldn’t make that same association with a physical injury.

Moderator NoteWe’re not doing this again. You’ve already opened threads on referendum-driven democracy; you can discuss the subject there. There is also the issue of opening up a new topic while abandoning an existing discussion because you don’t want to have to clarify or support claims you’ve made.

https://lz.ac.uk/lz-experiment/how-it-works/ “[Xe] offers an extremely low background environment to search for rare interactions. Xenon has no problematic long-lived radioisotopes: any radioactivity produced by cosmic-rays, for example, decays away relatively quickly. Being a noble gas, it can be purified to exquisite levels, so that most other contaminants can be removed. In fact, the only backgrounds we really worry about come from other noble elements, such as argon, krypton and radon. In the liquid form, xenon is very dense indeed – aluminium floats in it! – and a large mass will fit within a relatively small cryostat” I think the density matters because each nucleon would be considered a potential target. A larger recoil likely matters less than having more potential targets, as interactions would be rare.

Why wouldn’t a collision result in a recoil? Neutrinos undergo scattering interactions

Um, what? You never justified why this should have been in the Lounge rather than speculations, but I don’t see anything that suggests a theory of anything, much less everything. Now you need to convince me that this shouldn’t be locked. Is there a good faith discussion to be had here? If so, please get to it.

Reminiscent of the Valentine’s Day monopole event from ~ half a century ago. Not a lot of definitive physics with a one-off event.

Remember that the W and Z are the exchange particles, not the WIMP. Their mass dictates the limited range of the interaction, as noted. That short range suggests a small cross-section for scatter, i.e. (describing in classical terms) you need a direct hit; the particles “look” extremely small in that analogy. A massive particle could knock a Xe around a bit, just not very often

Or attraction. Celestial bits and bodies can impart momentum to each other without actually touching. In QM it’s an exchange of a virtual particle, and that can be attractive or repulsive

The weak interaction, perhaps. If there is momentum transfer to the nucleus, you can leave electrons behind.

How about you address questions asked of you before starting anew tangent or asking ones of your own? The underlying point is that you need to establish something is a fact; saying a source is unreliable calls into question whether something is indeed a fact. Until you verify the alleged fact, one need not assume it’s true.