HN user
While the causative effects are not straightforward to prove, LLMs definitely have addictive qualities... This will definitely have some negative effects to people with certain predespositons.. Also, LLMs tend to isolate more people - many health professionals will confirm that isolation is going to be detrimental for people for mental health.
So the skeptiscism in the comments about the findings is a bit puzzling.
How AI will cure neurodegenerative diseases and cancer?
Some plastic silicone straps with the heavier overall weight make it a worse experience that traditional watches
I could not tell from the article whether the use of LLMs was allowed in the peer review. My guess would that it was not since this is unpublished research.
In general, what bothers me the most is the lack of transparency from researchers that use LLMs. Like, give me the text and explicitly mention that you used LLM for it. Even better, if one links the prompt history.
The lack of transparency causes greater damage than the using LLM for generating text. Otherwise, we will keep chasing the perfect AI detector which to me seems to be pointless.
I think it is the direction of the situation, rather than the state of things, that is concerning. The general direction is that everyone is incentivized and rewarded to look after their bottom line and personal gain and then everything else.
IMO, not caring about the wider impact of our actions is something that will keep happening at an increasing rate.
Biological systems have also designs that emerged through evolution. Although the complexity may seem at different scales, the main difference is the measurements you can do. Both biological and electrical circuits are dynamic systems that have designs that gives them emergent functional properties.
As the article describes imagine having the list of radio components instead only instead of their topology (wiring diagram). The problem of figuring out how a radio works with this information, if youbknow little about their design, becomes quite similar with how figuring out how a biological system works.
The absence of a design diagram and our inability to measure components at the molecular level without disturbing the state of a system is the main reason bilogical systems are so challenging to understand.
If something causes cancer in mice, the curent consensus is that it is deemed unsafe for humans.
It is definitely a bit fishy.
I am sure there are other places with bad record keeping which were not included in the study to deflate the pvalues of book keeping.
I go to a bookshop, take a book off the shelf and start reading it, I am not infringing any copyright.
That's a false analogy. It is more like going to the bookshop and taking a photo of every page of the book.
Even so, if you use this content in any shape or form the source should be cited regardless of book ownership.
Immunity does not mean mRNA molecules diffused across the body. The mRNAs are supposed to be translated and degrated yielding the antigen protein. This antigens cause inflammation at the area of injection and in theory only the protein antigen will be circulated by the immune cells to generate immunity.
Title is misleading. Emacs is on a VPS not running natively on ipad
Wrong, this info I posted is innacurate
I am trying to assess whether philosophers not changing their minds is something that is desirable or not. On one hand, they represent their theses after long periods of introspection and studying. On the other hand, their virtue signaling propensity may relate to various ego ambitions.
Definitely, debate for the shake of debate feels like an excercise for the philosopher rather than identifying why different views exist and where these fall short. In the long term, it may lead to change of the philosopher. Given everybody keeps an open mind, I don't think that this is necessary a bad thing.
ISRIB has toxic effects on the liver, afaik from presentations i have seen. So yeah, unlikely it is going to pass any clinical trial
Skimming through the article, it fails to mention that journals have some power to assess systematic reviewer biases based on their past history. If reviewers are systematically more permissive towards specific people's work, then good science is not their objective.
So, essentially it can be viewed as a diversity problem in the reviewer space. The journals have important responsibility on this and they can not present as neutral observers of this phenomenon where they say : "oh every peer reviewing model has problems " and blame reviewers ethos that they are choosing.
A pgtk build of emacs is what I have been using for quite some time without any significant problems (native Wayland build)
https://github.com/masm11/emacs
Pretty sure there are builds for the browsers you mentioned that run natively on wayland