usually people bring up anyone who is losing physical control of their voice faculties, so they can have a synthetic voice that matches their natural voice
The iPhone has a built in voice cloner hidden in the accessibility settings for exactly this use-case: creating a backup of your voice in case you need it in the future.
Unsurprisingly, mammals (not just humans) also fear death and are very distressed when being lead to slaughter and seeing their peers go down before them.
Ants don't walk in line over the stove. It may not be fear, but there is something hardwired that tells them not too, or they would be extinct long ago
We see roundworms with decentralized nervous systems show chemical traces of fear, so it is actually hardwired deep in organisms and has been there a very, very long time. Fear is just too useful as a survival mechanism.
While plants may not fear in the manner that we do, they can chemically signal when one becomes damaged or stressed and cause physiological changes in plants that are not sharing the same conditions.
to be fair the majority of the statements that site mocks are not about bitcoin being dead but being a ponzi scheme, evil, hard to use by normal people, silly, a risky investment etc.
All are criticism that can be evaluated on their own but it's irrelevant how much bitcoin grew since they were made.
Not entirely joking but group teaching: fire up multiple AIs. Hear live talking in a foreign language, chip in when you want, they adapt to your level.
Lack of human contact and alienation are real problems at all ages, but that does not mean current chatbots are not excellent teachers, especially in language learning when you do not even need a curriculum as such, just talk/read/write as much as you can, it's all text.
It’s not really about the number of people, it’s about having a diversity of individuals, interests, topics of discussion, people making different type of mistakes, different accents and pace, etc
It is not conspiracy theory. Optimizing for profit (which includes not crossing regulators/governments) is a good enough explanation usually. Big (and most small) companies put profit above anything else, so this is usually the right angle to approach anything they do.
Google's Gemma models are usually celebrated, so were the llamas. If Meta releases Muse Spark it will also be a good thing. If Anthropic released a great open weight model I am sure that post won't be steered towards controversy and anti-AI sentiment.
It so happens Chinese companies are more friendly towards open weights, autonomy and freedom that most US based ones. Who would have guessed?
OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.
>assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark
It is not. Many mathematicians have said that they don't expect to see solutions to the other 5 problems in their lifetimes.
Of course, AI might advance fast enough that the "in their lifetimes" part ends up wrong, but there is a considerable gap to the other problems. We have barely any idea of how to even get started on most of them.
They did do this, but it seems that Navier-Stokes is the only one that was successful (unless, for some strange reason, they have proofs for the other problems but haven’t released them yet).
>They did do this, but it seems that Navier-Stokes is the only one that was successful
How convenient that they could solve the only problem where researchers have done most of the legwork already. What a coincidence. And the timing, perfect.
LLMs seem to be much better at finding counterexamples than other types of proof. It’s unlikely the other millennium problems will be solved with counter examples
Finding counter examples might be easier, but AI's also useful for assisting in creating proofs. For example, Anthropic just published a formalization of Fermat's last theorem a few days ago, something that human researchers have been working on for decades.
reply