*The world 3 months ago:*AI is growing exponentially and might take over the world soon. It can do everything you can, but better, and some even seem almost centient.
*The world today:*Turns out the large language model made to fool us tried to fool us by âunexpectedlyâ exhibiting behavior it was made for.
2 Sentence Summary: No, we emit about 40 to a 100 times the CO2 of a volcanic eruption (peer-reviewed study) in a year. Though they still have quite an impact with the particulates they throw off in the atmosphere, such as sulphur dioxide.
I wrecked my bike almost a decade ago. Not the first time, but the most violent wreck I've ever experienced.
Got thrown into traffic, broke some ribs, messed up my shoulder, and cracked my helmet almost in two.
After healing tried riding my bike again. Absolutely did not expect PTSD, but could not otherwise explain how wholly unconfident I felt while trying to ride a bike, even til this day.
I feel it is important to publicise refutations of extraordinary claims widely.
The media generally loves to publish the extraordinary claims. especially ALIENS!! but is silent when the results comeback as "Sorry, they were wrong."
This guy seems to be a bit confused about what free will is.
Does he mean to suggest that he was helpless in writing an entire book on the subject of free will? Does he mean to suggest that because I can't alter my own physical needs such as breathing, eating, and sleeping that I am somehow unable to WANT to change them? The article mentions his religious upbringing. I wonder if he would reach the same conclusion if he was raised in a different environment?
My read on it is this: when we construct ideas in our minds we often create shortcuts to help us process new information faster. In everyday life these shortcuts are quite useful. When considering philosophical questions like free will, we need to recognise that those same shortcuts can be harmful to our ability to consider broader possibilities. This person seems to have forgotten that.
Sapolsky, a MacArthur âgeniusâ grant winner, is extremely aware that this is an out-there position. Most neuroscientists believe humans have at least some degree of free willâŠ
Theirs is very much a minority viewpoint. Sapolsky is âa wonderful explainer of complex phenomena,â said Peter U. Tse, a Dartmouth neuroscientist and author of the 2013 book âThe Neural Basis of Free Will.â âHowever, a person can be both brilliant and utterly wrong.â
science
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.