For it to be brilliant, AI needs to be a benevolent tool all the time. It would take just a few malignant actors to turn our world upside. I suspect it'll follow the same Internet and social media path. Great at first, grow markets, bring us together and then take a turn.
That might not be practical/possible for early days but this does seem like a bridge to that natural next step that /u/dweekly is saying which would quickly phase out this Gibberlink protocol.
Try making nuggets from scratch. It’s so good and easy to do. Chicken tenders from breast meat. Egg seasoned with salt, pepper. Dunk into seasoned breading. Dunk into egg again and back to the breading. Pan fry. Yummy.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with nuggets. Nobody criticizes Italian meatballs, which are ground-up beef in balls. But then for some reason ground-up chicken in a different shape isn't "real chicken"?!
You’ll find the “ground chicken” in a typical industrially produced chicken nugget to be quite different than the ground meat found in a traditional Italian meatball.
McNuggets are 45% meat (specifically: Chicken Breast Meat) -- at least they are in the UK, where they have to give out this information. Presumably the US recipe is at least similar.
I'm sure there are many traditional Italian meatball recipes, but as one example, I had an AI convert the US measurements from Chef John's recipe, and it estimated 900g meat and 494g other ingredients, so 65% meat.
Honestly, ground meat is ground meat. What makes you think ground chicken is "quite different"? Why are you putting it in scare quotes? The chicken breasts used to make McNuggets are literally no different from the standard chicken breasts sold at your average grocery store.
And in both cases the ground meat/chicken is mixed with binders and flavorings to keep it together and keep it moist and make it even tastier -- variously including flour, breadcrumbs, water, salt, spices, etc. depending on the recipe.
Obviously nuggets are battered and fried. But then so are traditional Italian delicacies like arancini.
> And in both cases the ground meat/chicken is mixed with binders and flavorings to keep it together and keep it moist and make it even tastier -- variously including flour, breadcrumbs, water, salt, spices, etc. depending on the recipe.
Sure, or textured soy protein concentrate[0] to fill out the meat or soy lecithin [1] to emulsify the unholy mixture
My understanding: there actually is some difference in some cases (not saying it's true for McNuggets). But basically, a lot of time, they need special processing techniques to remove the meat close to the bone and this type of meat is then used in products that require ground meat (nuggets, meatballs, sausages, hot dogs).
Not all nuggets are ground, chick fil a nuggets I think are just a chunk of tenderloin or something. But I wouldn't call a fried complete tenderloin a nugget.
I do make fried chicken for them occasionally and I season with a bit of curry, cumin, and smoked paprika.
- 1 pack of 6 thighs or 3 breasts
- 4 tbs corn starch + 1 tsp salt + 1/2 tsp each of curry powder, cumin, smoked paprika to coat
- slice chicken thinly and use a mallet to flatten to make it even and cook faster (this also increases the ratio of breading to chicken which they like)
- coat each slice in the corn starch mix
- beat 2 eggs and then dredge the coated slices in egg
- coat the now egg coated chicken with bread crumbs of your choice
- fry in a flat pan with just about 4-6mm of oil
- about 60-90 seconds each side
They love it! But it also takes me almost 2 hours to do! So it's a once in a while thing in these busy times.
You're still going to come back to a child who's learned "Real chicken nuggets come in dinosaur shapes, are very salty, have a uniform breading, and don't require teeth to chew". He's going to think your dish doesn't quality.
Going through the school system (private pre-K/K and public) was really what changed my kids' eating habits. Once they get used to the school nuggets and pizza, it's hard to "unlearn". They were more diverse eaters as young kids and ended more picky and narrow in their food choices. It's why pizza is the staple of every kids' birthday party.
I believe this is a difficult problem for schools. They need to have food that meets the standards (as they are defined), appealing enough to 6 through {age} range to have them eat it, something that can be prepared with relatively low skill demands, and something that can be prepared easily in the quantities needed with the kitchen staff provided.
That really gets down to reheated chicken nuggets, pizza, and other classic school lunches.
The alternative would be to have a school that has a sufficiently large and trained kitchen staff to prepare diverse food, make sure that the food selection that they have meets the requirements (and that the kids aren't just eating the deserts).
I'm recalling back to my school food eating days and the kitchen had four people - two serving, one cooking, one cleaning.
High school had two or three in the cafeteria - and they were constantly putting out the fast food equivalent food items. I can't even remember if there were salads (if there were, I don't think I ever ate them). [Burger, deep fried [fish, shrimp, chicken], French fries] was my lunches for four years.
Though I'm also not entirely sure that schools are to blame for the narrowing of food preference with kids. They don't help, but I'm not entirely sure they are to blame.
100%; I'm not blaming schools, just pointing out to non-parents how this happens. A lot of non-parents don't have the context.
The kids get used to eating it at schools and birthday parties where people go for "safe" choices like pizza.
I, too, remember in my elementary school days in the 80's, that we had real, cafeteria prepared lunches (shep's pie was my favorite). But it was also a small rural school.
> They don't help, but I'm not entirely sure they are to blame.
Well, I also believe that there is a biological/evolutionary reason from what I've read. Generally, when kids become mobile, their dietary preferences narrow (so the idea goes) because now that they are mobile, it is more dangerous if they are willing to put anything in their mouth!
> Scientists at the Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Unit, University College London, wondered if children were reluctant to eat any unfamiliar foods, or whether they were selectively rejecting certain types – perhaps those most likely to pose a threat to heath. Early in human history, the presence of toxins within many plants made eating fruit and vegetables risky for children, while meat carried a high risk of food poisoning.
> 4. Causes of Food Neophobia
The source of food neophobia can be traced back to evolution when a neophobic attitude protected mammals from consuming potentially poisonous food. As an omnivorous species, to survive, humans had to distinguish between safe and poisonous food. Although this ability has lost its value today, it can still be observed in children around 2 years of age (sometimes earlier), when unfamiliar foods or foods served differently than before cause anxiety in the child, and a relative preference for familiar foods is apparent.
Other nations don't find it difficult. You just throw money at the problem, and the problem goes away. Like most problems.
Deciding that we need to serve food at a minimum of cost with a minimum of staff who is minimally trained according to a minimalistic nutritional guidelines, and charge children for the privilege of choosing to eat, and you aren't getting a feast full of fresh produce.
Japan is a decent model in making meals more communal and spreading the labor requirements around to students so that staff can focus on back of house work, but it starts with a higher budget basis to start with, makes meals mandatory, and provides significant subsidies.
I think it's like the rest of the school experience—your parents are the major influencers here. Our kids like what we like because we've fed them what we eat, from sardines to Sichuan to sushi. They take leftovers to school — cheaper and they don't like most of the cafeteria food anyway.
US food supply chain is highly, highly industrialized.
I visited Taiwan recently. Small island, semi-tropical with a long growing season. Stuff grows year round. Lots of markets with fresh fruits and veggies so lots of stuff is "local". The supply chain is short.
You go to even a random food stall and it can be just a few steps removed from true "farm to table".
The US is huge (logistical challenges that favor large scale, industrial food handling for economics) and many parts have short growing seasons.
In the US, the schools have Sysco and ConAgra trucks rolling up loading pallets of prepared foods. Depending on where you are, the food prep workers are contracted out to some third party private company. In my children's school -- in a fairly affluent area -- I'd guess that almost all of the food is prepared and heated from a bag.
> Not many schools can afford gourmet offerings like Mount Diablo’s, which also benefits from California’s year-round growing season. But school menus in several places have improved in the past decade, with fresher ingredients and more ethnic dishes, said School Nutrition Association spokesperson Diane Pratt-Heavner.
> In a national survey of 1,230 school nutritiondirectors, nearly all said the rising costs of food and supplies were their top challenges this year. More than 90% said they were facing supply chain and staffing shortages.
> The survey by the nutrition association also found soaring levels of student lunch debt at schools that have returned to charging for meals. The association is urging Congress to resume free breakfast and lunch nationwide.
> “This is the worst and fastest accumulation of debt I’ve seen in my 12 years in school nutrition,” said Angela Richey, nutrition director for the Roseville and St Anthony-New Brighton school districts in Minnesota, which serve about 9,400 students. They don’t turn away a hungry child, but this year’s school meal debt has surpassed $90,000, growing at a rate of over $1,000 a day.
> Making food from scratch isn’t just healthier, it’s cheaper, many school nutrition directors say.
> But that’s only possible when schools have kitchens. A national shift away from school kitchens began in the 1980s, which ushered in an era of mass-produced, processed school food. Pre-made meals delivered by food service companies meant schools could do away with full-time cafeteria staff and kitchens.
I think most of them are new to this type of nature so you're stuck in "is this normal? Am I in danger? If I run, will I look like a fool?" So you're standing there and looking for other people's reactions before making your own. So it's a bunch of people frozen and looking at each other before 1 person makes a run for it and everyone else does too.
Absolutely. That's what you see in the videos. Finally one person starts really running, and it prompts the others.
I think of it as the National Park discontinuity: few people these days have experience being in environments that can be rapidly lethal.
And there isn't a sign in National Parks saying "Past this line, there are apex predators, dangerous natural features, no cell phone service, and/or the nearest medical facility being a backcountry airlift away."
That's a big change from most people's everyday normal.
I saw one take a rearview mirror clear off a car with a lazy flick of its head, while walking past without breaking stride, just because it didn't like something about the car.
As Sean Connery says in Hunt for Red October, "We must give this American a wide berth."
It will forever boggle me but the way I sort of rationalize it is that speed basically borrows energy from time. Something like that. So the faster you go, the slower the time goes. So if you go the speed of light, you're taking so much time away that when you make a roundtrip, you're like 50 years into the future.
That's a totally wrong explanation but it helps me sort out the effects and what to expect. If you fly quickly around the Earth, your watch is a tiny bit different than the stationary clock.
AFAIK one can also consider the 4D velocity vector to have a constant lenght. Thus the faster you move in the spatial dimensions, the slower you move in the time dimension to maintain the constant length.
As the sibling comment alludes to, it's otherwise they wouldn't behave according to what we measure.
For a deeper "why", see Feynman[1].
edit: it's related to how spacetime with a finite speed of light is represented mathematically. There's some discussion here[2] which might shed some light.
This is close to the main intuitions of special relativity as a geometric theory. I would phrase is more as "speed borrows space from time". In general relativity (and special relativity if you look at it geometrically) every reference frame moves at 1 second / second in their own coordinates, but an observer in a different frame will see you move in their coordinates -- the 4-vector of your time / position keeps the same magnitude, so since you are moving faster in space, your time is moving slower.
This sounds cool, but I don't think it has explanatory value. It's true that moving close to the speed of light will mess with your intuitions about the passage of time and give you things like the Twin Paradox. But there's nothing special about time there, it also makes things shorter by Fitzgerald contraction.
You can't be in the future, for example. The point of relativity is the equivalence of reference frames, it's not like the space traveller's clock is wrong and the stayhome's clock is correct, it's that humans who never travel at speeds close to the speed of light don't expect that two good clocks could ever disagree.
The underlying reason is causality. Causality is the concept that an event can only be caused by another event in its past (not its future), and events can only impact their own future. Causality cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, ergo for a given event you can express the area of space that could have caused that event as a function of time (it's a circle with radius equal to the amount of time in the past you're looking times the speed of light; e.g. 10s before an event, that event could have been caused by another event anywhere within 10s*the speed of light).
If time is constant, objects moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light break causality. They're moving fast enough that causality propagating the opposite direction of their velocity (things happening in the future) reach them faster than they should, and causality propagating in the same direction as them reaches them slower than it should (because they're moving away from it at a significant portion of the speed causality is approaching them at).
E.g. lets say there are 2 massive celestial bodies A and B. A is not moving at all, B is moving at 50% the speed of light. Let's say they pass close enough to gravitationally interact, but are half a light-year away from each other. Once they pass each other, causality from B will propagate to A at the speed of light, like normal. Causality seems fine.
But causality will propagate from A to B much, much slower because of the relative velocity. If B is 1 light-year away, it would actually take something like 1.3 years for causality to reach it. In other words, A is within B's causality radius (B can cause effects on A), but B is not within A's causality radius (or rather, it is when the event happens, but it won't be there by the time causality gets there). That's a problem for something like gravity. B's gravity can influence A, but A's gravity can't be the cause of events on B, because of the speed of causality. Thus the only valid event is B's gravity on A, accelerating A without decelerating B, meaning we would have actually created energy (at least until causality catches up).
To maintain causality, and preservation of energy, something has to happen to B such that A interacts with B at the same time B interacts with A. The answer is to make movement through time and movement through space inversely correlated. If B is moving fast enough that light takes 30% longer to get there, B's time has to slow down by the same amount so that causality can be simultaneous and not create energy.
Causality essentially requires movement through space and movement through time to add up to some constant. As movement through space increases, movement through time decreases and vice versa. It's basically a formula like (current speed/speed of light) + rate of passage of time = 1.
That's the underpinnings of the idea that FTL travel will allow time travel. If (current speed/speed of light) is greater than 1, the passage of time has to be negative or flowing backwards to maintain causality. I.e. you are moving so quickly that you can catch up to and interact with causality propagating through the universe.
Somewhere out on the edges of the universe, the causality of the meteor that killed the dinos is still propagating outwards. Perhaps if we could move fast enough to reach that wave of causality, we would be able to interact with it somehow. It's all theoretical, and hand-wavy, and trippy, but interesting in concept.
Probably John Coltrane was pissed but then realized, damn, that was really good music happening in there. Screw it, but i'm out as soon as the last note is done.
