In the grammar test, Timmy, where Tommy had had ‘had had’ had had ‘had’. ‘Had had’ had had the teachers approval and was correct.

is a semantically and syntactically entirely correct and logical sentence.

A lot of them been so indoctrinated into mistrusting authorities and instutions, that they basically disbelieve anything they say on principle.

And al the evidence, all the scientists telling them they’re wrong just ends up reinforcing their belief in some giant conspiracy.

It’s sadly been shown in more than one study that changing the mind of conspiracy theorists with reason, argumens or evidence is basically impossible. It’s almost a self preservation instict against cognitive dissonance. They were so sure they were right, and now so one is telling them they’re not. That feels shit, and it feels shit to accept you were wrong about something you so fervently insisted was true. So their brains basically go into self defense mode, and just reject and attack anything that threatens the shaky fundamentals of their entire belief system. The best thing you can attmept to do is to distract them. Get them to talk and think about other things. When they mention the conspiracy, don’t engage, don’t argue how they’re wrong, they’ll just dig their heels in deeper, just change the topic to something else. Force them to spend less time in their delusions. Eventually, if you’re lucky, they might gain enough distance to the topic, and stop caring about it enough that they’re ready to start accepting how batshit insane those conspiracies are.

To quote Hbomberguy:

“The anti vaccine movement had next to no evidence [27] years ago, and they have even less today”

That is enormously ironic, since I literally never claimed you said anything except for what you did: Namely, that synthetic data is enough to train models.

According to you, they should be able to just generate synthetic training data purely with the previous model, and then use that to train the next generation.

LIterally, the very next sentence starts with the words “Then why”, which clearly and explicitly means I’m no longer indirectly quoting you Everything else in my comment is quite explicitly my own thoughts on the matter, and why I disagree with that statment, so in actual fact, you’re the one making up shit I never said.

Ok, that is a fair point I hadn’t previosuly considered. Though disclaiming a patent doesn’t loose you all legal recourse.

If someone else tries to repatent it, even if it gets approved, you can still file a challenge against the new patent with the PTO. You (or anyone else, really) would also have a virtually guaranteed court win, even if someone got the patent through and tried to enforce it. All you’d have to prove in court is that prior art of the invention exists, therefore the patent is invalid and unenforceable, granted or not, so it’s unlikely someone would even bother trying to enforce such a patent. A previous, diclaimed patent, of literally the identical technology being on record is pretty iron clad and unavoidable evidence that the patent isn’t original.

Yeah, it is a downside that this may discourage EV adoption, but tbh. if you chose your car based on the fines you’d get when speeding is…questionable, to say the least.

“the consequences of doing an illegal and dangerous thing with my product” should, in my opinion, not be a choice criterion.

Though a scaling that takes both size and weight into account might be even better. Particularly for crashes involving pedestrians, cyclists and bikers, the size, and particulalry the height of the bonnet, are almost more significant than just the raw weight. A hollowed out F-450 weighing 1 ton is probably still more deadly to those people than a ~1.5-2 ton electric sedan.

This isn’t really aimed at reducing adoption of big cars, more at getting the people who drive more dangerous vehicles, to drive with more regard for safety, and be penalised heavier when they don’t.

The spark plug only works on tempered glass, on which these hammers also would also work great. The issue the article is pointing out is that many modern cars use laminated glass, not tempered, which is much harder brake, and on which the spark plug trick would porbably work even worse than one of these hammers.

Also, carrying around a tiny piece of a broken spark plug in your car, in manner where you can quickly and reliably access it in an emergency is probably difficult.

If you never travelled more than 20 miles from your home in your life, and there’s only a single desert in that region, there’s no point in giving it a name. Everyone will just call it “the desert”. The need to give unique names to (large) geographic features only arrise with, and for, explorers. The people they were talking too probably didn’t even consider the idea of a large geographic feature like the desert or the big lake having or needing a proper name.

No it isn’t. The article is about how they RARELY work, and you’d be rarely in a situation where you can effectively use them. Sarcastically calling someone genius after they’ve repeated the same, wrong, point for the 3rd time in a row isn’t an insult dude, that’s ridicolous.

Please quote the exact part of the article which states these tools will literally NEVER work, in any possible situation. Because that’s what you’ve repeatedly claimed, and I’ve repeatedly repudiated. So since I apparently missed that part of the article, do please quote it to me so I can verify.

Anyway, you decided insults were the way to go so I’m out after the first sentence.

You could just admit that you’re unable to answer my hypothetical without destroying your own point. Or do this. Also fine.

Very very few. But in the incredibly unlikely case that it DOES happen, boy am I going to be fucking glad that I have a seatbelt cutter.

Also, these devices don’t have to be used on yourself. If there’s acute danger to someone ELSE stuck in a crashed car (e.g. fire, sinking or unstable ground), you can use YOUR cutter to attempt to extract them from the vehicle.

Most common fission reactions today release most of their energy in the form of neutrons. The only way to extract energy from neutrons is heat. But there are fission reactions which release a large portion of their energy in the form protons. And since protons are charged, their energy can be electromagnetically converted directly into electricity, with no need for intermediate process steps.

There’s already at least one company building prototypes like this, Helion, using D+He3 fusion, rather than the more common D+T fusion in other reactortypes like Tokamaks.

Real engineering has a video on Helion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38

If the model collapse theory weren’t true, then why do LLMs need to scrape so much data from the internet for training ?

According to you, they should be able to just generate synthetic training data purely with the previous model, and then use that to train the next generation.

So why is there even a need for human input at all then ? Why are all LLM companies fighting tooth and nail against their data scraping being restricted, if real human data is in fact so unnecessary for model training, and they could just generate their own synthetic training data instead ?

You can stop models from deteriorating without new data, and you can even train them with synthetic data, but that still requires the synthetic data to either be modelled, or filtered by humans to ensure its quality. If you just take a million random chatGPT outputs, with no human filtering whatsoever, and use those to retrain the chatGPT model, and then repeat that over and over again, eventually the model will turn to shit. Each iteration some of the random tweaks chatGPT makes to their output are going to produce some low quality outputs, which are now presented to the new training model as a target to achieve, so the new model learns that the quality of this type of bad output is actually higher, which makes it more likely for it to reappear in the next set of synthetic data.

And if you turn of the random tweaks, the model may not deteriorate, but it also won’t improve, because effectively no new data is being generated.

Because the tool does work, that’s the whole fucking point genius.

It just only works in highly specific and unlikely scenario.

I would never recommend a tool that doesn’t do its job to someone and feel like I made the ethical move. Especially for a life situation. A false set of security is not security.

Your stance is literally: “if it isn’t guaranteed to work in every single situation possible, then I’d rather have nothing”.

I’m curious what your stance is on Aircraft carrying life vests. Those are arguably even LESS likely to safe your life than one of these tools. Should Aircraft all stop carrying life vests because of that ?

Let me give you a hypothetical: You’re stuck in a car after a Passenger side T-Bone. All doors are crushed and can’t be opened. The passenger seat has been crushed against, and mangled the seatbelt receptacle, so you’re unable to unbuckle. There’s a fire, spreading towards the fuel tank.

Question 1: Is it possible, however unlikely, for a person to be in this situation ?

Question 2: do you think a person in that situation has better, worse, or equal odds if survival if they, or a bystander, has a window hammer and seatbelt cutter on them ?

You don’t know, because there isn’t one. If the doors are too deformed to be opened normally, there are only three possible axes of ingress or egress to the car. You either break a window or screen, you violently force the door open, or cut the columns and remove the roof. And since I doubt you’re suggesting everyone start carrying hydraulic shears and heavy duty circular saws, in their car, window it is.

And if I’m in a situation where I have to break a car window, even if it’s only a 1 in a million chance I’ll ever be in that situation, I’d rather have one of those hammers than nothing.

Same thing for a seatbelt cutter. I bet if your truck had caught on fire, and the fire was about to breach the fuel tank, you would’ve loved a seatbelt cutter to quickly free yourself and get out.

Waiting for trained paramedics to extract crash victims is obviously ALWAYS the best options, but if there’s an acute threat to the vehicle, like fire, unstable ground or sinking, you CAN’T wait. You HAVE to extract yourself or die. And like I said, in that situation I’d much rather have a hammer and seatbelt cutter than have nothing. In a situation like that, there is no “doing more bad than good”. You are dead if you don’t extract yourself immediately. Nothing the tools do or don’t do at that point could possibly make the situation worse.

This is like arguing that people should be told to not perform chest compressions on people having heart attacks, because it’s incredibly unlikely to ever be needed, and the average person won’t do the compressions hard or fast enough to be effective anyway.

I mean they’re not mutally exclusive. Fines could, and should scale with both.

What different strategy do you suggest to gaining egress or ingress to a car whose doors can’t be opened, other than trying to smash one of the windows or windscreens ?

And like I said, the seat belt cutter fine works exactly as intended, even if it’s unlikely you’ll need it, when you do, it’s gonna work. It’s literally just a knife, that has to be used once, so it’s not like it’ll blunt over time.

They’re not literally useless. A steel tipped hammer with a sharp tip is ALWAYS going to be one of the best tools to break a glass window. Even if it’s not as reliable or easy as it’s made seem in ads, it’s still going to be better than your hands or random junk you have in the car. And that’s not even mentioning that their whole criticism only applies to laminated glass windows.

Plenty of cars, especially older ones, still use tempered glass, which can easily be shattered with one of these.

And even the article doesn’t argue that seat belt cutters don’t work, only that you’re unlikely to be in a situation where you can effectively use them.

And call me crazy, but if there’s even a 1 in a million chance that a 15$ tool could save mine, or someone else’s life, with literally no downside whatsoever to owning one, I personally consider that worth spending 15$ on.

I’ve always said that the fines for moving traffic violations need to be scaled to the weight of the vehicle.

It’s insane that going 20 over the limit on a 250kg moped gets you the exact same fine as doing it in a 4 ton F-450.

There’s a ton of these tautonyms across the world.

Sahara, Gobi and Kalahari are also just Arabic, Mongolian and kgalagadi for desert, Michigan (as in the lake, not the state, which is named after the lake) is big lake in Ojibwe, Torpenhow is little town next to a hill, whose name is the old English, Celtic and old Norse for hill. So if you refer to the Torpenhow hill, you’re basically calling it the hill hill hill hill.

The whole scenario is already a grandfather paradox. If he stopped the plague, he wouldn’t have been sent back to stop the plague. If that doesn’t break the space time continuum neither will leaving them behind.