ZIZEK: that AI will be the death of learning & so on; to this, I say NO! My student brings me their essay, which has been written by AI, & I plug it into my grading AI, & we are free! While the 'learning' happens, our superego satisfied, we are free now to learn whatever we want
Yes, but therein lies the rub. Those that know how to learn will benefit. Those that don't will regress, possibly for life depending on when AI is introduced.
This is especially demonstrated in essay writing.
Many students associate essays with busy work because the topics they're asked to write about are boring. When the typical assignment that's given is "read this boring ass book from the 40s that's been in the curriculum for decades without revisiting its application in today's world, then write a 1000-word essay on a topic that's been discussed to death that you couldn't give less of a shit about; points will be deducted for views that stray too far from the norm," then it's absolutely unsurprising that most students will shove this into ChatGPT and call it a day.
On the flip side, when English or composition teachers are forced to assign thess assignments knowing full well that it's a crock of shit, then it is equally unsurprising that they will feed GPT into GPT and call it a day.
Students that know how to learn and are actually interested in becoming better writers will find ways around this. Teachers who have the freedom to design their own curriculums will be more creative about the types of prompts they assign and the books they have their students read.
The common link between the two? Money, of course!
Sure however the vast majority of costs come from the government regulation in the first place. Consumers of course bear the cost, however this doesn't necessarily mean we should remove these expensive regulations, one can argue they are beneficial.
If we assume they are beneficial, this also doesn't mean the government should subsidize it less but instead more to continue to allow the production of drugs. If we artificially require a price, many of these drugs would simply not be developed.
I'm under the persuasion that the future of healthcare is a voucher system to allow the competitive bidding of drugs/insurance to remain as well as the maintenance of the quality and quantity of medical research. Many countries purport to have better medical systems however we find that the American payers subsidize the rest of the world––with the USA producing more medical research than the rest of the world combined.
In a single healthcare system, the prices of drugs deemed essential will skyrocket while others will simply be excluded by the bureau. This then creates a cost on the tax payers through the inflation/excess tax required by the national budget to afford it. While at the same time the single healthcare system has little incentive to improve its efficiency of administration until it's fully deteriorated and governmental intervention promises a revamp which may still be ineffective.
The voucher system allows many insurance companies to exist, allowing the quality of insurance provided treatments to remain through that competition on their varied administrative strategies. While at the same time consumers with varying degrees of medicinal concerns can choose the right programme for themselves––opting to even pay beyond the sum provided by the voucher. This way it's no longer only affordable through a corporate benefit and the buyer group is available instead through a national benefit.
Only applies to single-junction cells. 68%-efficient solar panels are quite theoretically possible, they'll just be incredibly difficult to manufacture cheaply. The current world record for solar panel efficiency is 47.6%.
I agree, however the author is convinced about current popular solar panel technology.
Indeed even theoretically we can do 86% multi and 99% with quantum dots——in the current state of technology these remain science fiction considering the commercial manufacturing processes available.
Sure there are many novel solar technologies that subvert the SQ assumptions thereby avoiding the conclusion. However, the author of the parent post believes that existing technology today is sufficient.
Fatty cell infiltration occurs when the stem cell niches don't fully convert into its end cell both Glia and Neuron. This would then indicate that TZDs can be effective in promoting the correct differentiation
Yes Walter Pitt's proposal, which he disproved. But we know the prefrontal cortex is capable of simulating a turing machine, or any machine for that matter.
The strongest type of claim is when an a priori claim is called absurd, someone goes to make observations to disprove it and comes back convinced of your theory.
You might also say it's the only type of claim science recognizes. Though, whatever or how strong a claim is, the question is how important is what is proven and will it lead to real superconductive materials.
It's not relational. There's several rigorous proofs against Spinoza's relational theory. Namely that of Kant and Einstein:
"even if space is composed of nothing but relations between observers and events, it would be conceptually possible for all observers to agree on their measurements, whereas relativity implies they will disagree" [0]
Doesn't relativity mean there's no difference between that observer accelerating in one direction and everything else accelerating in the opposite direction? So wouldn't everyone's observation be equally privileged? I'm asking honestly as am (obviously) not a physicist.
Less risky to invest in ostensibly interest-rate backed investments (think he characterises it as fomo -> fear of loss).
Time running out to realise the prior 2-5 year investments in the VC funded space - all the other biggies are busted flushes ( NFTs, self-driving cars, crypto), AI last one remaining.
Future investment is heading towards safer seas (which proxy rates), rather than riskier, 9 in 10 will fail startups.
Generally you either use Latent Dirichlet Allocation, exact tags, or a mixture of both. I structure the metric space to weigh exact tags greater than LDA—-whereas you can then create two more classes in that LDA space, of the heavier similar tags and then the description.
