The OP article didn't link to the law text and the above poster didn't hint at what's ambiguous, so it's not clear that that's bad. It's also possible that the game companies are doing something wrong and engaging in wishful thinking/trying to find a technicality through which they can argue the law doesn't apply to them. c.f. premium loot boxes i.e. gambling.
An atmosphere reduces the amount of fuel needed to land, because you can use aerobraking to slow down rather than carry fuel to do it. See the Apollo return capsule, which landed without any rockets, only parachutes and a heat shield.
Theoretical foundation was slowly built over decades before it started though. And correct me if I'm wrong, but calculations that it was feasible were present before the start too. They had to calculate how to do it, what will be the processes, how to construct it and so on, but theoretically scientists knew that this amount of material can start such process.
On the other hand not only there is no clear path to AI today (also known as AGI, ASI, SI etc.), but even foundations are largely missing. We are debating what is intelligence, how it works, how to even start simulating it, or construct from scratch.
What do you think AI is? On that one page there's simulated annealing with a logarithmic cooling schedule, Hutter search, and Solomonoff induction, all very much applicable to AI. If you want a fully complete galactic algorithm for AI, look up AIXItl.
Edit: actually I'm not sure if AIXItl is technically galactic or just terribly inefficient, but there's been trouble making it faster and more compact.
The theoretical foundation of transformers is well understood; they're able to approximate a very wide family of functions, particularly with chain of thought ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07923 ). Training them on next-token-prediction is essentially training them to compress, and more optimal compression requires a more accurate model of the world, so they're being trained to model the world better and better. However you want to define intelligence, for practical purposes models with better and better models of the world are more and more useful.
The disagreement here seems merely to be about what we mean by “AGI”. I think there’s reasons to think current approaches will not achieve it, but also reason to think they will.
In any case anyone who is completely sure that we can/can’t achieve AGI is delusional.
this is not evidence in favor of your position. We could use this to argue in favor of anything such as “humans will eventually develop time travel” or “we will have cost effective fusion power”.
The fact is many things we’ve tried to develop for decades still don’t exist. Nothing is guaranteed
I'd put decent odds on a $1B research project developing time travel if time travel were an ability that every human child was innately born with. It's never easy to recreate what biology has done, but nature providing an "existence proof" goes a long way towards removing doubt about it being fundamentally possible.
Unless you have any evidence suggesting that one or more of the variations of the Church-Turing thesis is false, this is closer to a statement of faith than science.
Basically, unless you can show humans calculating a non-Turing computable function, the notion that intelligence requires a biological system is an absolutely extraordinary claim.
If you were to argue about conscience or subjective experience or something equally woolly, you might have a stronger point, and this does not at all suggest that current-architecture LLMs will necessarily achieve it.
There's a big difference between "this project is like time travel or cold fusion; it's doubtful whether the laws of physics even permit it" and "this project is like heavier-than-air flight; we know birds do it somehow, but there's no way our crude metal machines will ever match them". I'm confident which of those problems will get solved given, say, a hundred years or so, once people roll up their sleeves and get working on it.
"Biological activity" is just computation with different energy requirements. If science rules the universe we're complex automata, and biologic machines or non-biological machines are just different combinations of atoms that are computing around.
Humans are an existing proof of human level intelligence. There are only two fundamental possibilities why this could not be replicated in silicon:
1. There is a chemical-level nature to intelligence which prevents other elements like silicon from being used as a substrate for intelligence
2. There is a non material aspect to intelligence that cannot be replicated except by humans
To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence that either are true and there is already a large body of evidence that implies that intelligence happens at a higher level of abstraction than the individual chemical reactions of synapses, ie. the neural network, which does not rely on the existence of any specific chemicals in the system except in as much as they perform certain functions that seemingly could be performed by other materials. If anything, this is more like speculating that there is a way to create energy from sunlight using plants as an existence proof of the possibility of doing so. More specifically, this is a bet that an existing physical phenomenon can be replicated using a different substrate.
I've heard from a clinical psychologist and also from a bunch of people on the internet that the symptoms of BDP are often presented by (especially female) traumatized autists, and they run a high risk of being misdiagnosed with BDP. and based on the diagnosed (entirely AFAB) autistic people I know socially none of them show any signs of being unaware of or unmotivated by social validation.
Also there is a high overlap between autism and ADHD, many people have both characterizing them as opposite ends of a spectrum sounds like a stretch.
> Also there is a high overlap between autism and ADHD, many people have both characterizing them as opposite ends of a spectrum sounds like a stretch.
I think it's only a stretch if you think that someone only exists at a single point on that spectrum. If it's more like a spectrum of characteristics, then wouldn't it seem like strong autistic characteristics could exist at one end, strong adhd characteristics could exist at the other, and a lot of the shared overlapping characteristics exist in the middle?
I got a certificate error you might want to look into:
> Web sites prove their identity via certificates. Firefox does not trust this site because it uses a certificate that is not valid for www.iso100mm.com. The certificate is only valid for the following names: img.iso100mm.com, iso100mm.com
You can't halve the temperature of something by halving its measument in Celcius, because the celcius starts at some arbitary point above absolute zero.
50 degrees celcius is 86% as hot as the boiling point of water, not 50%.
There have been some studies recently screening older people who grew up with more restrictive diagnostic criteria for autism that suggest that increasing rates of autism diagnosis are likely purely the result of changing diagnostic criteria and increased awareness rather than increased prevalence of austism.
polio affected 8-37 out of 100000 people between 1940 and 1950 and everyone remembers it. CDC has identird 11 communities with 1 out of 36 8 year old children have been diagnosed with autism in 2020. Estimates place roughly 1/3 of those have less than 70 IQ. So let's say 1 out of 108 children.
You can't copyright a recipe, the thing reason it doesn't make sense for Pepsi to make an exact duplicate of coke is that Coke is better at selling Coke that Pepsi is, and it's better for them to be a niche alternative some people prefer than to be an undifferentiated competititor. Reverse engineering trade secrets is perfectly legal if you haven't agreed otherwise.
40 crashes per million flights has still got to be better than current road safety, at a very rough calculation the US for example had 128 road deaths per million people, which I'm admittedly not sure how to convert to make a fair comparison.
