To be honest, I feel like what you describe in the second part (the monkey analogy) is more of a genetic algorithm than a machine learning one, but I get your point.

Quick side note, I wasn’t at all including a discussion about energy consumption and in that case ML based algorithms, whatever form they take, will mostly consume more energy (assuming not completely inefficient “classical” algorithms). I do admit, I am not sure how much more (especially after training), but at least the LLMs with their large vector/matrix based approaches eat a lot (I mean that in the case for cross-checking tokens in different vectors or such). Non LLM, ML, may be much more power efficient.

My main point, however, was that people only remember AI from ~2022 and forgot about things from before (e.g. non LLM, ML algorithms) that were actively used in code completion. Obviously, there are things like ruff, clang-tidy (as you rightfully mentioned) and more that can work without and machine learning. Although, I didn’t check if there literally is none, though I assume it.

On the point of game “AI”, as in AI opponents, I wasn’t talking of that at all (though since deep mind, they did tend to be a bit more ML based also, and better at games, see Starcraft 2, instead of cheating only to get an advantage)

How so? A Large Language Model is usually a transformer based approach nowadays, right (correct me if outdated)?

AI is artificial intelligence, which has been used and abused for many different things, none of which are intelligent right now (among others used for machine learning).

Machine learning is based on linear algebra like linear regression or other methods depending what you want to do.

An algorithm is by definition anything that follows a recipe so to say.

All of these things, bare transformers and newer in development approaches like spiked neural networks or liquid neural networks are fairly basic, no?

EDIT: typos

I am not talking about what it does, I am talking about what it is.

And all tools do tend to replace human labor. For example, tractors replaced many farmhands.

The thing we face nowadays, and this is by no means limited to things like AI, is that less jobs are created by new tools than old destroyed (in my earlier simile, a tractor needs mechanics and such).

The definition of something is entirely disconnected from its usage (mainly).

And just because everyone calls LLMs now AI, there are plenty of scientific literature and things that have been called AI before. As of now, as it boils down all of these are algorithms.

The thing with machine learning is just that it is an algorithm that fine tunes itself (which is often blackbox-ish btw). And strictly speaking LLMs, commonly refered to as AI, are a subclass of ML with new technology.

I make and did not make any statement of the values of that technology or my stance on it

I mean doesn’t it heavily depend what you refer to as AI?

ML algorithms, come very close to LLMs and have been back in the day refered to as AI. They are also used in code completion.

Also both of these are algorithms, but with weights defined by data input.

deleted by creator

Not E2EE though

No age is fine. Being in a relationship with sbd to brag about their body or age only is weird

Edit: Spelling

Maybe the point is that to both of these are status symbols even though deplorable (both actually but the dating a 29 year old moreso)

deleted by creator

Astronomer here, not necessarily. Generally, heat death just means entropy goes maximal, as in everything is as spread out as it can be and the heat everywhere in the universe is the same.

Not sure if on those time scales all gets sucked up by BH

Sure. Generally, it is a marker for life as we see it being produced by living organisms on Earth (e.g. Algae) and it also should vanish quickly from atmospheres if it is not replenished.

However, as you correctly put it, there may always be a non-biological explanation as well for any of these markers, which we might not know as of yet. So far as I know, DMS has no non-biological explanation and is seen as a biological marker still.

Alas, the possibility of it being proven non-biological or even (as happend here) not a real detection makes it even more important to get more data and be very careful about the statements made from it than as otherwise those statements and/or connected papers have to be corrected/retracted. And if these then reach the public (and why wouldn’t they with the possibility of alien life) then this could diminish the trust in science if it turns out to be wrong.

Edit: I had a look and as you stated for DMS there may indeed be abiotic ways to produce it (scientific works from this year). They found it in comets and could reproduce it in labs as well.

My main point of the original comment was to add that the detection (paper) itself was flawed. Regardless of DMS being a sign of life.

Astronomer here, the “life detection” on K2-18b was dimethyl sulfide (DMS) which may be ̶I̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶a̶i̶n̶s̶ a marker for life. What you get from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is raw data that needs to be treated and calibrated to some extent to be usable in scientific study. This is called data retrieval.

However, the lead scientist on this paper claiming they found DMS basically used his own very specific way to do it and found very very weak signals in that way. Other scientist tried to both reproduce it in the way he did it and also with their ways to retrieve the data, but couldn’t find anything. So it turns out, it was simply a non-detection.

Edit: It might be the case that DMS can be produced abiotically (scientific works of this year) as chosensilence pointed out correctly.

My main point is, that the DMS detection itself was a non-detection in this case

So the higher minimum wage is already a thing in some countries (e.g. Germany, where degrees are also mostly free) and there is still the trend of many more ppl. studying.

In general, our world is getting more complicated and we live longer. So i dont really see the problem of more education?

You are correct about the replication problems, but this also varies heavily depending what scientific discipline you look at.

Also if you do science you may take the results oft another scientist (if they make sense and are peer revievewed) and build your next experiment on it, which may also work out and get peer reviewed.

So even with the replication problem science can work and build on thousands of experiments. But it would be better and needed that the experiments were reproducible.

I feel like there is a misunderstanding in this thread.

The universe is described by math. Math itself is also very fundamental though.

However even the Singularities are disputed and generally not liked by physicist. We try to find other explanations for how black holes work (lots of papers on this). Moreover, we never really have a singularity, but ringularities, as all black holes rotate changing the singularity to a singularity (they probably also have a charge but that is a different matter).

And on the other hand, if you are a follower of the simulation argument (I know a few physicists that are) there are also counter arguments against this (which I believe are more likely).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

I think you explain it pretty well, but one thing to add. Due to the General Relativity and thus spacetime it is actually not directions that all point toward the singularity, but as soon as you cross the event horizon all of your future becomes the Singularity, not as a point in space, but a point in time

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-singularities/lightcone.html

This points at that, you would also need to be able to travel faster than light and that would make you time travel backwards in time

You OK?

I am German, but I feel foremost European