weve had things beating the turing test since practically the 70s. it’s not a useful test unless your goal is to demonstrate the futility of testing this way, as turing largely intended.

that’s how it works. Human trials can be 5, 10+ years.

sure, im not saying blindly trust people in all situations. but distrust should be exceptional, not normal.

and your heart could fail at any moment randomly. doesnt make it rational to design your whole life around it. Yes people can betray your trust, but again and again and again it’s been shown that people dont betray eachother far far more often than they do. Also, if you’re big on Logic™️, lying only works if the vast majority of communication is truthful.

the sort of logic that’s fundamentally irrational.

i just have to wonder what kind of llm bubbles you’re seeing for this to be “the most sane” prediction. it’s amongst the most patently absurd hype claims out there.

they’ll find a use case any day now for realsies.

No it didn’t. It was not a conventional peer review process, it was an aesthetic review of if it looked adequate, not if the content was, and only barely passed… at an ai conference workshop… by people who knew it was an ai produced paper. this is shameful work.

my friend, think this through. if they can move stuff off tables, if cameras can record them, if humans can see them, if they create chills… these are all measurable, tangible, things. if your explanation of ghosts requires that they be immaterial and incapable of affecting reality in any way, then that’s trivial and inane. We have ways to measure all of these things. these are all examples of measurements, in fact! positing we dont know the fundamental force that ghosts interact with so we cant measure it doesnt make sense. Literally, it is not cogent.

our sensory capabilities are probably better than you think, and, among other things, that doesnt make any sense anyway. if they can tangibly interact with the world in any way, such as a human noticing them, knocking stuff off tables, showing up on videos… there is really no scenario where this logic works, and while toxicity isnt nice, the argument presented is wrong in humorous ways.

based on the screenshot, it does not seem to include a buffer, and is unlikely to imo because that requires taking a stance on the size of that buffer.

if you eat the recommended amount of protein (and a little extra as a buffer) then you would not notice any particularly striking change, but statistically your quality of life will improve for myriad subtle reasons. Hormone production will be more stable, you will be less likely to get diseases associated with protein deficiency, you will build muscle slightly more easily, your brain will technically function slightly better in subtle metabolic ways, as with all your other organs. etc. You will likely, not notice any of it. But across your life it will statistically make a difference in your health outcomes. this is true of all phytonutrients, not just protein.

Yes, i point out whackamole in my comment. It’s a completely useless critique of tor/briar because there is no alternative which cannot also be critiqued like this, and there can never be.

you might as well say “well the problem with keyboards is that someone needs to ship it to you.”

oh sure, but you can get around these blocks and this sort of block is ultimately always a possibility short of building your own network infrastructure. and as blocks like that become more common it becomes more common to circumvent them too.

“significantly harder than youve been lead to believe”, no, you just werent clear in your description of the problem. if your problem with tor is “governments can play whack-a-mole blocking ips and traffic” there is no technology which doesnt have that as a downside.

“the tor protocol can be locked” ?

tor is decentralized, if someone’s tor server goes down you just go to another.

music has things that can be described mathematically in ways that are largely historical, but not axiomatic in a math sense. but if learning music helps you learn math and/or visa versa, power to you.

im just going to say, obsession with things like discoverability and growth are mistaken lessons from corporate social media. they have their place, but are not in fact all that important.

please read about this topic like what the other user linked to you, i think it will help you understand why the conversation went how it did.

right now you mostly appear to be saying things that are doubly wrong, both not understanding what race means in the modern context (it’s largely defined by skin color, and yes it’s incorrect, and yes it’s what you inadvertently reference by saying skin color = behavioral patterns) and making a false link between behavior and phenotypic traits like skin color.

again, please read about this topic from experts, you will have a much better time understanding the thing you said.

this is some wild mental gymnastics, and misunderstands what you are being informed on. I also recommend you read the links you have been sent at the least before trying to discuss the intersection of skin color, race, culture, and behavior again.