“machine learning is the second best solution to any problem”

In much the same way as human thinking is the second best (and soon third best) solution to any problem. The point is that an LLM can come up with the best solution and use it.

These things weren’t predicted by the Attention Is All You Need paper.

Obviously not — they’re not going to make claims beyond the results they achieved in the paper. It was, however, obvious to everyone who read the paper that all of what we consider thinking could be derived by clever application of a sequence model, and all those papers that came after were results achieved by teams doing the obvious thing.

I’m saying there is no “big leap” necessary. As the paper that introduced the transformer said, attention is all you need.

Transformer is useful for damn near anything. At the end of the day, what we consider intelligence is the ability to predict what comes next, whether that is what our senses will tell us next or what the next hypothesis to test should be based on the data we have seen so far.

Solving famous unsolved problem: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-just-solved-an-80-year-old-erdos-problem-and-mathematicians-are-amazed/

Drug discovery (AI can’t do anything about the time needed for clinical trials): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03434-4

Assisting the blind: https://www.acb.org/i-am-blind-self-driving-cars-waymo-give-people-me-independence

Of course not. It needs to be legislated, just like the 40 hour workweek and worker safety laws. Is there anybody who really thinks companies will voluntarily disadvantage themselves against their competitors?

Where does he say the chatbot is his girlfriend? Not in the register article posted as evidence.

If you wanted to vote for Sanders in the general election, you should have convinced other people to vote for Sanders in the primary. That’s how primaries work.

Look, I’m more progressive than you are. I just happen to also know how things work.

The ones who cared, voted. The ones who didn’t care, didn’t vote. That’s how voting works.

Uh, no it’s not.

It is. As a result of the Epic Games v. Google, Android builds with the Play Store are required to allow users to install apps without any warning at all. They obviously can’t allow any app to be installed without a warning because this would be a boon to malware authors, so this is now enabled with verification. You can now even share apps you build with your friends without requiring them to go through an unverified apps flow with a scary warning. Additionally, Google is not allowed to take a revenue cut from those installs.

You’re confused because the install process for apps that are not verified (a path that didn’t exist before at all) or installed from a system app store has changed. This now has to be done with adb, which takes effect immediately, or via an on-phone process that takes a day to complete. Once it is done, this setting is copied to new phones, so the process actually becomes easier for most people who do this because they don’t have to go through the process repeatedly.

It is possible on every Google phone.

This change is the opposite. It makes it possible for a user to install the Epic Games Store from their website without seeing a scary warning, and Google won’t get a cut of any of the revenues from that store. The same with any other company. Netflix can now offer their app from their website, and people can install it without any warning, and Netflix won’t have to send any revenue to Google for people who subscribe in the app.

This change makes it so you can’t install software (such as F-Droid, NewPipe, Google Camera, Samsung Notes, etc.) from APK, unless you install them directly from Google’s Play Store [without going through unnecessary hoops and 24-hour delays].

This change was precipitated by a change that allows you to install an app outside the Play Store without the user seeing a scary warning or going through the existing hoops, as required by the Epic Games v. ruling.

Which “the people” are you talking about? Sanders had much more support with “the people” (i.e. voters in general), but was unable to get that support from “the people” in the core of the Democratic Party (i.e. the folks who actually decide who the nominee is going to be).

The primary voters. They’re not “the core of the Democratic Party.” They’re just regular voters. The people, if you will. The DNC decides who the nominee will be based on the votes of the people in the primaries. The people overwhelmingly voted for Clinton.

Okay, so they gave us Clinton by a double-digit percentage margin. That makes it worse, not better.

The DNC didn’t give us that. The people did. Winkly’s claim was that Sanders was the people’s choice. The votes show that Clinton was actually the people’s choice, by a wide margin.

For example, my primary ballot only had two options: “Biden” and “uncommitted”.

The point remains that he was the people’s choice. In races where he ran against only one other option like yours, the margin of victory was even larger. The DNC did not bar anybody from running in that primary.

Who do you claim was the people’s choice, if not the candidate who got the most votes?

obviously the people’s choice for candidate

The people voted for Clinton over Sanders by a double digit percentage margin. It wasn’t even close.

For comparison, Obama actually lost the reported popular vote in the 2008 primaries, but this includes a Michigan race that he dropped out of because Michigan moved its primaries forward in violation of DNC rules. Excluding Michigan, Obama won the popular vote by a 0.1% margin, increasing to 0.4% with estimated votes in states that had caucuses instead.

did it again with Harris

Biden won the 2024 primary by a more than 80 percent margin.

The people’s choice was clear in both instances. When Biden dropped out, the people’s choice for a replacement wasn’t clear, but there was no path to rerun the primary, so they had to pick somebody who was closest to what the people had voted for in order to get closest to the people’s choice, which was a continuation of the Biden administration.

Should I remind you who spent 700 BILLION DOLLARS on bailing out banks?

Congress authorized $700 billion for TARP, signed into law by GWB in 2008. In 2010, Obama signed Dodd-Frank, which mainly introduced banking regulation meant to prevent a future crisis but also reduced the amount of money authorized to $475 billion. Four years later, the Treasury sold its last TARP assets, booking a $15.3 billion surplus over the lifetime of the program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

The Biden administration already forced them through HHS. https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/florida-sues-biden-administration-new-regulations-protecting-gender-affirming-care

I do count incumbents as primary candidates. The DNC funds the winner of the primary, whomever that may be.

And the law to follow said that it was up to doctors to decide whether a treatment was necessary enough to be covered government insurance. Now Trump is rewriting the law to make it illegal for doctors to give gender affirming treatment at all, let alone for it to be covered by health insurance.

Feel free to browse through https://www.opensecrets.org/political-parties/DNC/2024/expenditures and show us.