swansont

It can do a really poor job of summarizing. I don’t see how that means it can teach. Can it explain concepts? Can it figure out why an explanation doesn’t work for some students, figure out what the misconception is, and come up with alternate explanations? Give examples, because I think you’re overestimating the capabilities of LLMs. Can it answer questions that aren’t part of its “training”? Google tried to excuse the poor performance of its AI on novel questions. Can it figure out a poorly-phrased question, which you will get from students who don’t understand enough to explain what they don’t know.

Concentrating the rays can work if the lens or mirror array has a larger area than the collector. Mirrors are used in thermal solar, but lensing has the problem of what happens with off-axis rays - unless the system tracks the sun, you might miss the collector.

! Moderator Note From Rule 2.13 ”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.”

I’ve seen several treatments of this framed as if cutting corners was a brand-new phenomenon, but yes, the corners are now bigger and easier to cut.

! Moderator Note This all seems true but we’re a discussion site. What do you want to discuss?

! Moderator Note Merged and locked because you posted this before and didn’t learn a damn thing from the feedback, such as tagging Musk with dishonesty when he’s not the one making the claims.

No, but then, this seems like a straw man. I don’t think people familiar with science think it’s a linear path. And I would say more complete rather than complete. These are not mutually exclusive. You can have progress without a paradigm shift, and scientific revolutions don’t represent all progress, just perhaps the progress that get noticed more. Quantum mechanics, for example, did not render classical mechanics obsolete. The latter still gets a lot of use. And falsifiability is in no way in conflict with paradigm shifts. Truth is matter for philosophers You haven’t pointed to any misconceptions. Any part of science can be superseded by a better theory, but in physics at least often it’s in some new domain previously inaccessible - e.g. smaller scale, faster motion - that wasn’t available to earlier researchers. But classical physics still works in its area of applicability. I think “misconception” over-dramatizes the situation. More and better models.

Are you suggesting that these were the result of AI, or is this just worded poorly? None of those give us physics that works earlier than the BB. Some of these aren’t even confirmed for after the BB.

That’s not novel, though, just the latest in a long line. We’ve seen spam for sites that will do homework and essays for years. Cliff and Monarch notes were around when I was in high school. Cheating/cutting corners on academics is nothing new.

Yes, tautology. Can you ask a more specific question?

It’s not “ruining” disciplines; AI art and writing are pretty crappy. Even where it’s used, it’s not as useful as hoped. I was reading about an ad agency’s frustrations because AI couldn’t make small changes. Instead of recreating a picture and e.g. changing someone’s hat from red to blue, it would recreate a similar scene, but not identical,. And identical is something that a computer should be able to do.

Except that’s not how it’s being used, by and large. It’s doing things, like writing and art, that some folks and corporations don’t want to pay for, but that some people want to do. But it’s not like anyone is being forced to work in the art mines, and this would free them.

! Moderator Note It’s not. Per rule 2.13 “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.” IOW, it gets the same level of credence as a drunk person in a bar, and we don’t want anyone sharing that, either. It’s not even clear what you want to discuss here. It’s not quantum theory.

If there was anything before the BB, evidence of it did not survive the event. The only evidence that could would be details of the hot dense state, and we don’t have physics that works to explain the behavior, as Markus said. Conjecture about anything prior has no basis in existing physics. No evidence and not testable.

There are now reports of people saying it’s patriotic to pay higher prices. They’re never going to admit those were the droids they were looking for.

Or Trump, if Boss Tweed is too remote

Science requires evidence, not vibes. And we’re discussing life, not reality, so no tap-dancing away from the topic.

There are a fair fraction of people here who are not US citizens, so I don’t see how they would have the agenda of US politics. Science deals in verifiable facts and the current/recent Republican party largely rejects facts and science, so it shouldn’t be surprising that scientist would tend to align with the party that isn’t hostile to it. Your own agenda is becoming clear. Further, your avoidance of supporting your claims has become an issue. That’s not evidence. It’s thinly-veiled racism. The dog-whistle is quite clear: They aren’t white men, so they must be inferior. The article you linked to was an opinion piece, citing no data, and with no actual definition of DEI and using that as a way to attack it. That’s equivocation (a logical fallacy) which is hardly a solid basis for a critique

Yeah? Is this somehow surprising to you? This came up before - QM being a part of chemistry is well-known to chemists and physicists. QM being involved falls in the “sun rises in the east” category of discussion. This is the veneer. Where’s the substance? What’s your point? What details of quantum mechanics - i.e. actual science - are you prepared to discuss? We could, for example, talk about how tunneling makes certain reaction more likely than what a classical description predicts, which counters certain objections about how these reactions are unlikely. It’s also why fusion in the sun happens at energies lower than what the Coulomb barrier naively predicts. It happens in a lot of circumstances.

That’s the way it’s supposed to be. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin” That means you can’t hire someone based on any of those attributes. Anyone claiming DEI is doing so, is misrepresenting DEI. How about you supply evidence? I don’t see any. It’s your claim, so it’s up to you to support it.

If you’re going to advance that idea it’s up to you to provide evidence for it. If you don’t have time, don’t make the claim. Hypotheses need evidence to support them. Otherwise it’s just mudslinging.

Yes Who has suggested it doesn’t? Yup. What are the viable alternatives? We keep asking. But you can’t seem to explain what this angle is. You just stated you weren’t presenting alternatives. Just a few sentences prior to this So you know you said that, and also that these aren’t “viable” Life can’t be defined this way if it exists independent of matter.

How is any of that tied to DEI programs in the US? Bollocks. Show actual evidence that this is the case, rather than parroting GOP talking points. Also show that casting a wider net to hire better people is a bad idea in coming up with solutions.

Prevailing scientific knowledge is “we don’t know how it happened” so in that perspective how can there be alternatives? As far as prevailing scientific knowledge of what we do know, what is an alternative to that? It’s what we know! For there to be an alternative, what we know has to be wrong. Have you shown anything science has discovered to be wrong? And as alternative lines of investigation goes, what have you offered along those lines? I don’t see any posts discussing the details of e.g. quantum biology from you. We’re not discussing it because you aren’t, in any substantive way. You have the option of not participating.

That points to a problem we’ve seen - not defining your terms, or using lay definitions instead of more precise scientific ones. Most people understand that “magic that entertains children” is not actually magic, and that what we’re discussing is not sleight of hand or illusion (stage magic) and what it refers to is paranormal magic. The term you want to look up is “analogy” That might clear up your confusion I can’t help but notice that you have not actually offered the third option that would rebut my claim. Keep in mind that Luc has been adamant that they are not promoting creationism, so God has already been excluded as an option. If multiple people allegedly miss the point, perhaps you should consider that the point was not clearly made. But when you claim “science people think that magic started life” I have to wonder how in the world you can reach that conclusion based on what was discussed. Peterkin answered it