swansont

Doesn’t that apply to truth, as well?

It’s in how the images are created. There’s no ai in things drawn by people.

“If we take images sufficiently separated in time (a few years, say) then that motion (called proper motion) can be detected. The two images can be blinked one after another, for example, and the nearby objects will appear to flicker back and forth. Or, one image can be subtracted from the other; stars will more or less disappear, but anything moving enough will be seen as a pair of objects close together, one positive (white) and one negative (black). That’s a lot of work. … the project has found 3,006 “motion-confirmed” brown dwarfs. Three thousand! That literally more than doubles the known number of these objects, a huge score” https://badastronomy.beehiiv.com/p/citizen-scientists-find-over-3-000-nearby-brown-dwarfs

I wonder where it read that in its training. Or maybe it was coded in separately.

Their score comparison and “play today’s game” strongly suggests yes, at least in the window of their day

AFAIK that’s compared to the rest of the day’s participants

Input not from the user. It’s part of the package being delivered. This blithely ignores hallucinations. That’s garbage generated on its own, since it’s just a regrouping of the training data based on statistical probability. Not input. I saw something on this, too. How it’s easy to poison results, and this is being exploited the way SEO skews results. Reddit, facebook, Quora are all scanned by ai engines that double as search engines. Answer? Yes. Answer correctly? No.

For me a pin makes it easier, since the various ancient empires are often larger than the modern borders I associate with them. I can also place a pin near the border of two or three civilizations if I can’t narrow it down. (e.g. Britain/France, or Japan/Korea/China) After playing a dozen times I’ve learned a few things, and gotten better at my gut reaction of what continent something is from. Plus a bit of refinement on how old/young things are.

You’re forgetting the training data, which can be another large source of garbage going in. Who gets credit for that? Certainly not the user.

Thorndike published “Animal Intelligence” in 1882, so wow, you must be really old. Again with the “we” when you mean “I” But this bit was about humans and other animals. I don’t think anyone here has argued that LLMs think, or are intelligent or have free will or cognition, so there would seem to be no point to expound on this. You seem to have missed the point. You don’t seem to question whether you are getting garbage out.

An activity I’ve been enjoying the past couple of weeks. https://anthropeum.com “Each daily game features ten artifacts from the Met's collection. For each artifact, you place a pin on a map (your best guess at where it was made) and select a time period. Points are based on how close you get on both dimensions. After your 10 rounds, you'll see your score on a distribution curve of everyone who played that day.”

That’s not an excuse for not trying to be more precise. Hubris

“We”? You speak for yourself, and (absent any citations) only yourself. There are plenty of examples of animal intelligence and cognition. Being unaware of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I can’t tell if you’re trying to rebut me or agree with me, whether this is supposed to be dazzle or baffle. Again, not being aware of things doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Plenty of science is observational or theoretical, without need for experiment in order to deduce what’s happening, and seeing beyond what we believe. Newton, Einstein and Darwin being prominent examples. It’s arguable whether we observe reality directly, but that’s a separate topic.

That must be why nobody puts wind turbines just offshore, or on the coast. Except for all the ones that are just offshore, and on the coast. There is a link in the article, which shows a rather nice picture of the wind and solar farm, and the exceedingly flat land around it. The generation there ensures the transmission lines are in place, so no new ones are needed. AutoNotionA windowless concrete tower 40 stories tall on the China...China has a third option up and running on its coast now, and it doesn't look like either one. North of Shanghai there's a 148-meter concrete tower that

And if you don’t live near a mountain?

“China built a 40-story tower that stores wind power by stacking concrete … Surplus wind power hoists 35-ton blocks cast from recycled concrete and industrial aggregate toward the top. When the grid needs electricity again, the blocks descend and spin the generators. The tower stores 100 megawatt-hours and can deliver 25 megawatts for about four hours, at a targeted round-trip efficiency above 80 percent, with a 35-year lifespan and no chemical degradation.” https://boingboing.net/2026/07/06/post-china-built-a-40-story-tower-that-stores-wind-powe.html I did a rough calculation in my head and realized you’d need around 10k blocks to do this, and that seemed like a lot, but apparently it’s what they do https://s203.q4cdn.com/692145866/files/doc_news/CNTY/2024/Rudong-100MWh-Gravity-Storage-Project-of-China-Tianying-Inc-CNTY-Gains-Spotlight-on-CCTV-Translated.pdf

This was already being done, before modern ai. The big battles in LotR used digital characters with crowd simulation software called Massive, so this dates back ~25 years. https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/features/how-lord-of-the-rings-used-ai-to-change-big-screen-battles-forever/ But battles aren’t the same thing as acting, with close-ups and dialog, etc. I guess we’ll see how well its received, since Tilly Norwood is set to appear in a film https://variety.com/2026/film/global/ai-actor-tilly-norwood-movie-debut-misaligned-1236802325/ The wikipedia page gives some insight into the pushback within Hollywood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilly_Norwood

Pretty sure this is false; there are examples of animals (e.g. crows) trying to solve problems - some multi-step problems - by trying things. “Will this work?” is an experiment. Few of your pronouncements here have been backed up with citations that support them. I know you can’t prove a negative, but if you had checked you might have found your claim to be incorrect. It can’t agree. You agree based on the possibly flawed information you were presented. You’ve assured us that you are just being sloppy with your language, but if you’re being sloppy with this it doesn’t give a lot of confidence that you aren’t being sloppy elsewhere. As said in the philosophical treatise*, [people] Who can't say what they mean don't mean what they say *Wordy Rappinghood, Tom Tom Club I started a short one, but I recall longer ones https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140316-the-ways-we-think/#comment-1306600

One analysis I read claimed that the pipe liner shrinks slightly while curing, which is okay in pipes, but on a flat surface it’s going to cause it to crack and/or detach

All because the Cubs won the World Series in 2016

But “my headache is painful” implies that it’s painful to the person saying that. The truth of that statement does not just exist for that person, even though only they experience it. Being personal means that the truth can’t be independently verified.

Thanks! That makes sense. And saves me a dive into the rabbit hole

“NASA has bought a little more time for Swift, turning off all scientific instruments to slow its descent.” I’m trying to think what the connection is between the two, unless there’s something being left out of the non-explanation, like turning off means retracting things, and thus reducing drag.

No. I’m not sure what I said that would lead you to raise the issue. But I don’t really care to know. We’re trying to hash out the difference, or there is a difference. Without having agreed on any distinction, any conclusion on my part would be premature. You gave examples of statistics, but you also said you didn’t trust statistics because people might make stuff up and that bias is present. If so, why do you consider them to be facts? If someone lied and said that they had visited Greece, is that a fact? I don’t consider it to be a fact. So if some statistics are incorrect because they’re based on lies, how can they be considered fact?

In order to speculate on how ghosts are able to interfere with people's active dreams, one would have to establish that ghosts exist. Without that, the idea does not qualify for discussion here. You can’t bootstrap your way past it. If you want to discuss how actual existing people/devices/technology might be able to interfere with dreams, you are free to open a thread on that