I'm not sure anything has been made more clear at all. In fact, the paper appears to contradict itself, as it uses the most complicated possible everything to make this "simpler to understand"
Was that not the intent??
I think you went around in circles too much.
Consciousness theories must be falsifiable and inputs non-trivial - that is maybe the worse way to say that. Much of this could have been said better.
It reads like you are flexing your disciplines special words and language for normal shit -> a plumber can talk at you and you'll have no idea what they said too, especially if they try to do that.
As an intelligent person, who apparently understands this topic, an article like this can only be a flex for "job security" (like the plumber who describes plunging a toilet as the act of: "Hydrodynamic Pressure Rebalancing accomplished by a manual, oscillatory pressure-differential induction cycle.")
OR... they cannot simplify further due to lack of understanding of the subject matter.
If that was more technical tho, like something more similar to technical writing... I would have had Copilot summarise it for me.
You are correct, the future is collaborative with AI, but not everything will still need to be collaborative...
Technical writing, like manuals and whatnots, that is simply akin to a math problem that, post calculator, has always calculated by calculators - even by people who didn't need them.
It will not be better, there is absolutely loss, it will still happen.
I think Palintr ought to be nationalized and placed under the jurisdiction of several competing watchdog agencies - it can generate automatically our annual, quarterly and etc datasets for specific, selected things.
Anyone in disagreement needs to read about Palintr and what has intentionally been said about it
I don't know how much you keep up with right wingers. Those I know no longer care about the Epstein files. In fact, they never cared about the Epstein files! It must be convenient to have reality warp around you constantly so you never have to question your decisions or beliefs.
It's been interesting to watch all the folks in my local newspaper comment section who used to call folks "pedos" for supporting queer folks or voting for biden all simultaneously stop doing that. If you file off enough cogs from the clockwork of yor mind you can think you believed anything at any time.
This is exactly what will happen and is well deserved/can only be expected.
The biggest problem with this, is the real reason we are sinking "drug boats" - "Pirate America" as I like to think of it.
You reverse engineer our tech giants - you don't get to participate in global trade.
Outside of an invasion of the US - something I don't know would even work (Canada full compliance would be required to have any chance at all) - I don't think there is a course of action to prevent/sidestep that course of action.
I assure you, the powers that be, already know this.
Actually, this is what I've been wondering since ChatGPT changed whatever they did recently - my interaction experience radically changed, not necessarily worse, not really at all less functional, but absolutely different now and I'm unsure how I feel about it.
I agree with redoing rules every update - and absolutely do rules, extremely clearly that you want legitimate critique and feedback, not sycophancy -> always test that functionality.
It does get tricky when they decide to interpret the same rules differently seemingly at random.
Also frustrating dealing with changes like what has happened with Copilot - the internal rules change so frequently and are so narrowly defined, it's almost pointless to even define your own rules for that platform.
Sometimes tho, I found it worked better to start something in Copilot and then bring it elsewhere after a point. I do a few things like that between AI
I can't come come up with one (unless we program something to hallucinate ;)
Is that a failure of the example or the rule in neuroscience?
I extremely disliked that "rule" immediately, I'm quite sus on it.
reply