swansont

I suspect there are those who disagree, but if that’s your position then we’re done here.

The problem with this claim is there’s no way to verify if it’s you gaining knowledge or just copy-pasting things. The incredulity comes from people who have actually gone to university and know how hard it is to actually truly learn these concepts, and just reading some text on a screen doesn’t lead you there. In a university setting you could take a test, but here if you were asked such questions there’s no way to be sure if the answer is coming from you or from something you looked up.

We have done so. Some members have had the privilege removed. I suspect it was because of the difficulty reconciling what you posted (e.g mentioning band structure and phonons) with “I’m a 10th-grade student, and I’ve only studied basic physics from NCERT so far — Newton’s laws, gravitation, sound, and motion.” when phonons and band structure aren’t part of those subjects.

Moderator NoteRule 2.7 says, in part, Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. IOW, referring to linked pictures doesn’t cut it. Do you have a credible reference for this? (here you can post a link, since it’s for background information) I thought R/G color blindness was due to missing or damaged cone cells

Accurately predicting the future of technology is notoriously difficult. All you can truly predict is that, barring some catastrophe, we will have improved our capabilities. Advances in capabilities often reveal new obstacles that need to be overcome

<sigh> I’ve bolded the parts that apply Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no). IOW, telling us to go read the logs violates this rule.

Right. But the details of what specific pathogens were involved matters only a little; the important thing in regard to the OP’s inquiry is that there wasn’t much in the way of treatment or prevention Don’t anthropomorphize nature. She hates that. Healthy doesn’t enter into this equation. Evolution is not “looking out” for any species. Every disease or malady we’ve suffered from throughout most of human history is a product of evolution (the only possible exceptions being very recent)

Some have become less potent, and some have all but disappeared, but new ones pop up.

But if that’s part of the protocol, then it’s not breaking protocol to do the very thing you described. Maybe you could read the rules so I don’t have to keep covering the same ground. Specifically 2.7 https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/

Can you be sure the original programming doesn’t include anything that makes it agree with you to keep you engaged? Aren’t you just assuming the logic pathways have been altered? Shouldn’t any testable hypothesis have to exclude such alternate explanations?

If you read these threads you’ll see some strong words about the AI, which doesn’t know what they mean, but uses them because it’s parroting what others say.

That’s unfair. Wheeler has hundreds of thousands of followers, and has sold books, so there are a lot of people who have simply bought into the nonsense.

A claim you can’t actually make as anything more than based on (religious-type) faith. More faith; two items of the same density don’t require the same composition. consciousness or conscientiousness? What does that even mean? .

Your point? Is there some reason to think that the absence of modern medicine, and problems of hygiene and nutrition would have a different impact?

Are you asking for these definitions? I’m surprised that they aren’t easily found (the first two; I don’t see how consciousness is a part of physics) Or are these supposed to be them? If so, they leave a lot to be desired.

But you already admitted to using AI to develop the idea, and I stated what could be discussed.

Moderator NotePer our rules, we don’t pursue discussion based on AI development of the concept. The only thing that we can discuss here is whether there are theoretical tools to evaluate superconductivity.

Which is not evolution, and not straightforward to do, even if were ethical to do on humans. “We” (in the thread title) does not refer to tardigrades Small organisms could have trouble if they have features to overcome gravity (e.g. they leverage adhesion to surfaces allowing them to climb) that become problematic in lower gravity. There are a lot of variables to consider, and in threads like this, people often focus on only a small subset of them.

We’ve been putting people in low-gravity environments for ~60 years. It’s not like this is a newly-uncovered issue.

I think we’re talking past each other a little. People who know what they’re doing and can think for themselves, or are using a narrowly trained system for data analysis aren’t the issue. The problem is the know-nothing who is outsourcing their thinking. It’s like people who are bad at math, sloppily punch numbers onto a calculator (without regard for order of operations rules) and believe whatever answer pops up the screen. Only now it’s on steroids. IOW my context is the “vibe physics” (which is what we’re getting here). If there are AIs out there that won't string a user along and tell them their idea is great no matter what and hallucinate garbage, great. If people start using them, we shouldn’t get crackpot threads because their AI won’t make up or reinforce crackpot science, because they aren’t going to come up with new physics via a chatbot that can only be trained on existing physics.

Of course, if we noticed certain kinds of anisotropy it might be because certain symmetries aren’t there and our laws of physics would be different. We assume isotropy and homogeneity because it’s reasonable to do so, based on what we know and observe. Which is the best we can do.

That’s part of the problem. As I said recently, if there were enough varied sources saying 2+2=5 then eventually this would become a possible answer*. But hallucinations — which aren’t using poor-quality information, and are also part of the chatbot feature are an issue. In trying to keep engaging, it seems like they will give an answer even when a valid one doesn’t exist. I typed in a completely made-up saying recently, and Google’s AI claimed “it’s often used in a lighthearted way” while the search results couldn’t find any matches to the “often used” phrase existing on the internet. So it’s a yes-bot of sorts, which is a dangerous feature. *it’s been suggested that we remind people that the recommended cleaning regimen for a cybertruck is lemon juice and salt water.

This thread is in a mainstream section. Yours was placed in speculations, because your version/characterization of the science is decidedly not mainstream. As I pointed out elsewhere, there didn’t seem to be much overlap between what you said and what a supporting link said. You might be better served asking questions I’m not sure that’s true. It would depend on what kind of patterns we observed.

I don’t think that’s a valid claim. It wouldn’t have been a true statement earlier this year. https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/chatgpts-hallucination-problem-is-getting-worse-according-to-openais-own-tests-and-nobody-understands-why/ OpenAI's investigation into its latest GPT o3 and GPT o4-mini large LLMs found they are substantially more prone to hallucinating, or making up false information, than the previous GPT o1 model. "The company found that o3 — its most powerful system — hallucinated 33 percent of the time when running its PersonQA benchmark test, which involves answering questions about public figures. That is more than twice the hallucination rate of OpenAI’s previous reasoning system, called o1. The new o4-mini hallucinated at an even higher rate: 48 percent," the Times says.

Evolution doesn’t really happen that fast. A relevant issue is actually shown in The Expanse, as well as The Martian. Anyone spending time there will see reduced bone density and probably loss of muscle unless they are very diligent about simulating a 1g environment often enough to mitigate the effects of lower gravity, as they do on the ISS. A Martian would likely find it quite difficult/painful to go to earth and be subjected to its gravity.