“Study my brain. I’m sorry,” Tisch quoted Tamura as having written in the note. The commissioner noted that Tamura had fatally shot himself in the chest.

Didn’t shoot himself in the head to preserve the brain. Reminds me of the “Texas Tower Shooter” Charles Whitman.

In his note, Whitman went on to request an autopsy be performed on his remains after he was dead to determine if there had been a biological cause for his actions and for his continuing and increasingly intense headaches.

During the autopsy, Dr. Chenar reported that he discovered a pecan-sized brain tumor, above the red nucleus, in the white matter below the gray center thalamus, which he identified as an astrocytoma with slight necrosis.

I’ve heard a neuroscientist talk about this and conclude that this tumor could very well have been the cause for his behavior.

Deleted / Wrong thread.

It was supposed to be a joke. They live around 2 to 4 years.

I’ve had the same gerbil for almost 30 years. I doubt I’d notice if someone swapped it into identical colored one in the middle of the night.

Judging by the comments here I’m getting the impression that people would like to rather provide a selfie or ID.

I’ll make sure to try crying tomorrow in the hopes that my tools magically appear on the jobsite.

No other than it’s geographically closer to my actual location so I thought the speed would be faster.

I agree with the sentiment but despite the vast amount of pushback and downvotes I get for voicing certain views it’s extremely rare for me to have my comments removed let alone be banned. Some individual communities might be worse than others and .ml communities you should avoid like the plague anyway but broadly speaking I’d still claim that it’s pretty difficult to get mods to take action against you as long as you’re being polite.

And as a self-employed I only know how much I earned at the end of the year which could be wildly different than the year before.

EU is about to do the exact same thing. Norway is the place to be. That’s where I went - at least according to my ip address.

I’m not sure I know what I want for life but I have a number of things I don’t want so I’m trying my best to steer clear of those.

FUD has nothing to do with what this is about.

And nothing of value was lost.

Sure, if privacy is worth nothing to you but I wouldn’t speak for the rest of the UK and EU.

My feed right now.

No disagreement there. While it’s possible that Trump himself might not be - but also might be - guilty of any wrongdoing in this particular case, he sure acts like someone who is. And if he’s not protecting himself, then he’s protecting other powerful people around him who may have dirt on him, which they can use as leverage to stop him from throwing them under the bus without taking himself down in the process.

But that’s a bit beside the point. My original argument was about refraining from accusing him of being a child rapist on insufficient evidence, no matter how much it might serve someone’s political agenda or how satisfying it might feel to finally see him face consequences. If there’s undeniable proof that he is guilty of what he’s being accused of here, then by all means he should be prosecuted. But I’m advocating for due process. These are extremely serious accusations that should not be spread as facts when there’s no way to know - no matter who we’re talking about.

It’s actually the opposite of a very specific definition - it’s an extremely broad one. “AI” is the parent category that contains all the different subcategories, from the chess opponent on an old Atari console all the way up to a hypothetical Artificial Superintelligence, even though those systems couldn’t be more different from one another.

It’s a system designed to generate natural-sounding language, not to provide factual information. Complaining that it sometimes gets facts wrong is like saying a calculator is “stupid” because it can’t write text. How could it? That was never what it was built for. You’re expecting general intelligence from a narrowly intelligent system. That’s not a failure on the LLM’s part - it’s a failure of your expectations.

I don’t think you even know what you’re talking about.

You can define intelligence however you like, but if you come into a discussion using your own private definitions, all you get is people talking past each other and thinking they’re disagreeing when they’re not. Terms like this have a technical meaning for a reason. Sure, you can simplify things in a one-on-one conversation with someone who doesn’t know the jargon - but dragging those made-up definitions into an online discussion just muddies the water.

The correct term here is “AI,” and it doesn’t somehow skip over the word “artificial.” What exactly do you think AI stands for? The fact that normies don’t understand what AI actually means and assume it implies general intelligence doesn’t suddenly make LLMs “not AI” - it just means normies don’t know what they’re talking about either.

And for the record, the term is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), not GAI.

Claims like this just create more confusion and lead to people saying things like “LLMs aren’t AI.”

LLMs are intelligent - just not in the way people think.

Their intelligence lies in their ability to generate natural-sounding language, and at that they’re extremely good. Expecting them to consistently output factual information isn’t a failure of the LLM - it’s a failure of the user’s expectations. LLMs are so good at generating text, and so often happen to be correct, that people start expecting general intelligence from them. But that’s never what they were designed to do.

There are plenty of similarities in the output of both the human brain and LLMs, but overall they’re very different. Unlike LLMs, the human brain is generally intelligent - it can adapt to a huge variety of cognitive tasks. LLMs, on the other hand, can only do one thing: generate language. It’s tempting to anthropomorphize systems like ChatGPT because of how competent they seem, but there’s no actual thinking going on. It’s just generating language based on patterns and probabilities.