physPop

no it doesn't work at all -- because the LLM isn't sentient, emotional, nor does it care for the user

No. Even for large models that a good mental model. This is parroted all over and is wrong. Its not going to generate out of distribution answers. Its a probabilistic function of the training set.

Its for reasoning not generating art?

and the heating

butterfly and the swoop are both essentially useless too compared to their reference devices

Thats the definition of cherry picking and survivorship bias

no? this isn't what it argues at all. did you read it?

It's not widely known and mostly spun in MSM as fringe theory (thanks to marketing by big AI cos). this is a well written essay, and if it helps the discourse all the better.

Its also cheap, and fire retardant compared to other finishing. It used to be lathe+plaster. And before that plain wood.

China does it and it works well. We just need governments with executive planning capabilities. In my country (Canada) we only have myopic politicians who only care for re-election.

Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

false dichotomy.

so you can do the transformations (see the rlisp macro section)

26% means not ai 3/4 times...

If you don't have stakeholders I contend you probably don't have a product, or you're building the bare minimum MVP which upon becoming a product will be woefully inadequate, generating the aforementioned bottleneck.

That's only true if you're making something that's already been done.

python isn't untyped, its dynamically typed https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2351190/static-dynamic-v...

I feel like thats really oversellign coro -- theres still a TON of boilerplate

Aren't utilities, by definition, state owned? Or is that also backwards in america?

Paper mills existed long before LLMs

it does but you need various config tweaks

its not though. the primary job of software engineers is to ship a product that produces income for their employer.

patently false, have you attended one of his lecture series in person?

re: your last point that is not true. we can measure arbitrarially quickly (Nottingham group does some 3d EVI at ~100ms TRs). You can also reduce volumes and just look at single slices etc, a lot of the fundamental research did this (wash U / Minnesota / etc in the 90s). Its just not all that useful because the SNR tanks and the underlying neurovascular response is inherently low-pass. There is a much faster 'initial-dip' where the bold signal swings the other way and crosses zero (from localized accumulation of DeoxyHg before the inrush of OxyHg from the vascular response). Its a lot better correlated with LFP / spiking measures but just very hard to measure on non-research scanners...

Unfortunately, for experts in the field, this is a "we know" article that probably shouldn't have been published, and belongs more in a textbook...

agree. especially the comments saying "just address it". Its a lot of technically complicated interactions between the physics, imaging parameters, and processing techniques. Unfortunately the end users (typically neuroscience/psych grad students in labs with minimal oversight) usually run studies that just "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" not realizing that is the antithesis of the scientific method. No one goes in to a resting state study saying "we're going to test if the resting state signal in the <region> is <changed somehow> becuase of <underlying physiology>". They instead measure a bunch of stuff find some regions that pass threshold in a group difference and publish it as "neural correlates of X". Its not science, and its why its not reproducible. People have build whole research programs on noise.

it doesn't measure the oxygen level directly either. the bold signal is correlated to dephasing induced by the oxy/deoxy hg ratio that isn't even necessarially localized to the voxel (flow or long range magnetic susceptibility perturbations from nearby accumulated deoxyhg (veins)).

no. you generally can't irradiate healthy volunteers for studies

+1 F# is criminally under-used

honestly this sounds like you've never really done it. FP is much better for ergonomics, developer productivity, correctness. All the important things when writing code.