swansont

Your “answer as above” lacks a citation.

Which you have not stated until now, and you have not provided any links to credible sources reporting it And as I said, Atlas has a tail, so we know matter is being ejected — a non-gravitational acceleration is expected. If you want discussion, you have to provide the details, rather than expecting others to go dig for them. When you make a claim, you need to back it up. Here’s a report of an acceleration no bigger than 3 x 10^-10 au/d^2 (if my math is correct, that’s about 10^-8 m/s^2) https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/CLV.pdf So is there any evidence that the usual suspects (outgassing, radiation pressure, Yarkovsky effect) don’t account for it?

But dS = dQ/T, so if heat flow in is greater than the flow out, dQ is positive, and so is dS. Entropy increases.

Please some worked examples of it. And a properly formatted equation.

It means they (typically) will get moved there, if they aren’t started there. ETA: It’s not what I mean. It was a staff consensus to add this rule.

Your responses almost count as cryptic messages. It’s like overhearing one half of a phone conversation Desperate? albedo would be important for any model that wants to estimate heating or radiation pressure. Ruled out? Who did that? Nothing was visible, but not all gases are visible. But this thread is about Atlas, which is definitely outgassing - there’s a tail. www.noirlab.eduGemini South Captures Growing Tail of Interstellar Comet...Astronomers and students working together through a unique educational initiative have obtained a striking new image of the growing tail of interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS. The observations reveal a pr.... Of which, I will point out AGAIN, you have not shared the details. I can’t help but notice that these are not calculations. They shouldn’t be that involved. (I’ve noted a strong correlation between people who resist sharing such work with people who “don’t do math”). People who are to be taken seriously are eager to share and discuss, rather than just lecture. The latter, BTW, is contrary to the rules. If that’s what you want, go start a blog. This is a discussion forum.

If you ask for clarification, I will try to clarify. But I’ve tried to be clear: most threads about AI go into speculation, per rule 2.13. You were invited to present your evidence. I don’t see where you did. And skeptical - yes, that comes with the territory. This being a science discussion site. Surely it has become apparent in your time here that this is not a credulous audience

I find it hard to fathom the reasoning here. It gets difficult to maintain the assumption of good faith posting with every obtuse comment.

No, I didn’t. When someone tells you about their own work, it’s not appealing to authority.

Who is “they”? IBM? The computer conglomerate? That has their own AI model (Granite)?

I base my notion on what the computer people say, e.g. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/large-language-models “LLMs work as giant statistical prediction machines that repeatedly predict the next word in a sequence. They learn patterns in their text and generate language that follows those patterns.” I suspect they employ a lot of coders. It would not surprise me that they hire ethicists to help stave off legal problems, but that’s not the same as their input becoming part of the code. You’re free to present actual evidence, of course.

It’s not clear what you’re not in agreement with I think there could be other factors. Albedo would be one. No sense? Solids outgas. The question isn’t whether it’s happening, the question is how much? Outgassing would follow the laws of nature. The issue I brought up is that you haven’t shared the details of the laws of nature you’re applying Without details, there’s no way for any of us to know how you arrived at this conclusion. The point of a discussion board is to share these details.

Yes, go talk to them. (though I am a doctor)

I don’t see anyone arguing against the laws of nature. It’s just that you haven’t articulated the details of the application of these laws Not here you haven’t (what you’ve stated elsewhere doesn’t apply). You mentioned “proportional reasoning” once, but, again, you haven’t articulated any details.

If you have a mountain of evidence, that sounds like a science discussion. If what you have is subjective observation, interpretation, opinion or anecdotes, then you don’t have evidence.

Apparently. I don’t often participate, but I see the titles and post summaries, and when I see “experiment” associated with LLM, I’m going to scan it to see why it’s in philosophy (some people try to sneak posts in that should be eksewhere), or if rule 2.13 applies. In this case, both triggers came into play. You’re offering a philosophical solution to something that’s not a philosophical question; you pretty much ignore any issues about how a LLM works. You might as well have asked about objects of different masses falling at the same speed. A philosophical treatment is a non-starter.

Not recalling exactly what I googled, but it had to do with leaving shoes behind, and it led me here

Where is the philosophy in this? It seems like a not-very-rigorous investigation of a LLM that ignores the obvious (that a LLM is programmed to give plausible-sounding answers) Per the rules, this belongs in speculations

I’ve seen this suggestion. It was called “rapture trolling”

Turns out there were two spammers who posted in philosophy that we hadn’t banned yet (gujarrr was one) And I just found a few more by searching on “support” in the title and scrolling through the ~55 pages of spam we got on Friday. (Most were in Science News)

Tough to tell, if they use a VPN or other proxy.

I assumed so, but it was the only spam post that showed up, so if Otto could see it… Wow. That seems like the worst way to implement the protocol. Unfortunately we can only do what the software allows. Occasionally I wish I had a non-moderator account so I could see what regular members see.

I was going to leave a pair of shoes at the end of my driveway to make it look like I was taken to the passers-by, but it was raining and I didn’t want them to get wet. Trump wanted to get raptured but the holy escalator at The UN knew better and stopped working.

One post is not a flood. It wasn’t the same type. And the system flagged it, though I had assumed flagged posts were hidden until approved (they are displayed with a pinkish background, just like hidden posts are)

You didn’t provide the calculation and hadn’t provided any reasoning behind it, and now you’re saying it’s proportional but not why or how you arrive at 10%. Nor have you explained why you think it would be behaving like Oumuamua and not Borisov. In addition, we don’t know anything about Oumuamua on its inbound journey as it was discovered some 40 days after perihelion.