via statistical imitation. other methods, such as solving and implementing by first principles analytically, has not been shown to be np hard. the difference is important but the end result is still no agigpt in the foreseeable and unforeseeable future.

the limitation is specifically using the primary machine learning technique, same one all chatbots use at places claiming to pursue agi, which is statistical imitation, is np-hard.

could you expand on that?

read where?

see certain optical illusions in a way that other vision models cannot.

eh… but not in a way that is really like what humans see. which is the articles claim, but it makes a clasically cs approach to nuerology: zero effort to prove the quite substantial claim.

Word soup

that is most certainly not word soup. it’s also an accurate statement, though uncharitable to the authors claims.

Also, the detail in description of their “quantum” inspiration (an effect not unique to quantum mechanics in fact, at that level of description) reads like they skimmed wikipedia’s intro to xyz topic, whether or not the author understands the topics more deeply.

“dead game” isnt owned by that movement and it has nothing to do with the article. “oh my bad” would have sufficed, blaming the article for your misinterpretation of the headline is silly

solid old man yells at cloud energy

Removed by mod

The internet as the internet companies percieved it would look like and sold it as absolutely and completely vanished, yeah.

The internet is a funny analogue!

Because it experienced the dot com crash under almost the same sort of circumstances.

I mean I would and do in fact literally blame societal and familial problems when kids are brutal, unkind, or hurt others, and similarly blame societal and familial problems for when kids are not protected from brutal, unkind, and hurtful things.

Why are you saying the things you’re saying like a gotcha? Do you not feel that society has a significant impact on the behavior of youth?

Software engineering firms continuously learning the hard way the lessons of old from conventional engineering.

At this point I can only determine you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Much of what you said is very wrong but it’s not worth arguing about.

Or you know, reducing thermal load by using broadly more efficient capacitors allowing you to shove more current in the car. Or by meeting grid scale requirements for car charging by smoothing out the grid impact of a bunch of charging at once. Or any number of benefits.

Ultimately this certainly benefits car charging. It benefits all electronics. No you won’t be getting two second car charges with this.

Almost every electrical system on the planet uses capacitors. Especially high power systems. Of which evs are.

“No real point in mixing capacitors in with a large battery” ?? That’s done literally all the time for both filtering and for intermittent high power output. Like when I say almost every electrical system uses caps, I mean almost every electrical system.

More of an actual comment, good. More efficient capacitors in both speed and heat certainly helps in charging devices of all sizes. Of course it wouldn’t be charging large batteries in seconds, but that doesn’t mean no improvement.

Why do you feel that the researchers are wrong about their physics research?

Why would librewolf specifically advise that you minimize your extensions to decrease client uniqueness if it had no effect on client uniqueness? Someone’s misinformed, and I don’t think its librewolf.

Yes that should always be assumed.

Same exact monetization garbage. “Enshittification and p2w got you down? Well I’ve got more of the same right here just for you!”