That sounds like a reasonable prediction to me if the LLM makers do nothing in response. However, I'll bet coding is the easiest area for which to generate synthetic training data. You could have an LLM generate 100k solutions to 10k programming problems in the target language and throw away the results that don't pass automated tests. Have humans grade the results that do pass the tests and use the best answers for future training. Repeat until you have a corpus of high quality code.
I just looked it up. The process involves modifying a fertilized egg or embryo to create a founder organism. The gene drive is designed to be inherited by more than 50% of the organism’s offspring and propagate through the population over successive generations. Because humans have fewer offspring and longer generation times compared to insects, it would take many generations and potentially hundreds of years for a gene drive introduced in a single human to spread widely through the population.
I apologies for my other reply - which was flagged - perhaps I was rude. You are wrong because there are ways to introduce a gene drive through pathogens - e.g. you introduce a self-generating CRISPR payload through a pathogen vector for which it is possible to completely saturate gen 0. Source: I worked in a leading biology lab, with biologists actually performing this research.
If you can get a pathogen vector to infect all of humanity you already have just about everything you need to cause massive damage; the gene drive doesn't make this situation appreciably worse.
We are comparing guns and bullets. The fact that you can genetically engineer a pathogen vector to deliver a gene drive is not well known to the public.
"In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological progress could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption."
> With web search, Claude has access to the latest events and information, boosting its accuracy on tasks that benefit from the most recent data.
I'm surprised that they only expect performance to improve for tasks involving recent information. I thought it was widely accepted that using an LLM to extract information from a document is much more reliable than asking it to recall information it was trained on. In particular, it is supposed to lead to fewer instances of inventing facts out of thin air. Is my understanding out of date?
I have found that for RAG use cases where the source can be document or web data, hallucinations can still occur. This is largely driven by the prompt and alignment to the data available for processing and re-ranking.
Searching for 'pebble core 2 duo' already comes up with a page of results only related to the watch[1] (including this very comment thread, ironically[2].) Search engines are very good these days.
> Strengthen immunity by increasing contact with natural environments
My mom is a family and children's photographer. She likes to photograph kids in their backyards or in local parks, sitting in the grass. She often encounters small children who are unnerved by the feeling of grass as they have never touched it before. Also, parents will ask if their child could sit on a blanket, because the ground is dirty. I'm really curious how this attitude started. It is so alien to me.
> Fitting 3 meals into an 8h window would be … tricky.
That's the main secret to time restricted eating, in my opinion: You don't have enough time to eat as much as you normally do so overall calorie intake tends to decrease. I think the other reason it's helpful for some people is that eating nothing for one meal takes less self control than restricting yourself to a small portion, leading to better adherence than normal calorie counting.
Another long term benefit is that it normalizes the feeling of hunger. To be able to feel hunger after not eating for 15 hours, but be able to wait that extra hour is huge for managing impulsively and learning that simple hunger isn’t as urgent of a bodily demand as one might have previously thought.
There’s a big difference between “I’m malnourished”, “My body feels hungry” and “I want to eat for reasons other than feeling hungry”. Intermittent fasting will definitely teach you what “My body feels hungry” feels like, and shows you how to suppress it for hours.
I think the positive reinforcement of eating during the time window also helps in this learning process.
I read a few years ago that hunger is not pain, it doesn't "hurt" and you can ignore it.
What I find fascinating about hunger is how it interacts with your subconscious. You start daydreaming about food. If you're not paying attention you'll find yourself standing in front of the pantry.
When I'm hungry I feel like my conscious mind is wrestling with my subconscious.
I think about hunger as a pressure. The longer you go without relieving the pressure, the stronger it will become. Eventually, any rational person will follow the natural urge to eat as it grows stronger and stronger.
I find being slightly hungry makes me mentally sharper. It’s a fine line though, as symptoms such as irritability, daydreaming, loss of focus, poor memory recall, and reduced critical thinking skills will accumulate over time.
Pressure is not the right metaphor for me because the hunger comes in waves and you can just ignore it forever. You can kill yourself on a hunger strike for example.
I've been following 16hr fasts by skipping breakfast and eating my first meal at around 12:00 each day. Normally have an afternoon snack, then dinner at 18:00 with my young family. Perhaps a sweet treat by 20:00 after putting the little one to bed. Honestly, it's not that tricky if you bulk up lunch a bit.
Edit: As a sibling comment says quite rightly, you do feel hungry in the late morning, but reacting to that feeling is optional
I stopped feeling hungry in the morning a long time ago. Just unhealthy amounts of coffee, without sugar or milk. If I eat even just the tiniest snack or sweet, the food processing tract will "wake up" and it's over. But if I can avoid that, I only break the fast because of convention, not because of hunger.
But it's also very contexy sensitive: currently working from a place where I usually go for high calorie throughput sports (think Tour de France climbs, but higher and a heavier rider, obviously a lot slower but the energy demand is mostly mass x elevation, almost unpacked to speed) and my body is in "eat! you will need it!" mode every day. Crazy weight gain on the working days.
> they'd have to arrange some way for a photographer (or themselves) to take a better picture and then CC license it.
That sounds like something a publicist could easily do if it were a priority. Actors and publicists have no trouble managing their IMDB pages and IMDB even charges for the ability to contribute.
The article that follows that one is also very interesting and worth reading. It shows how a coastline that existed 100 million years ago and cut through modern day Alabama is still visible in demographic and election maps. (By a crazy coincidence, I just dug up that article and sent it to someone not even half an hour ago, since we were talking about geology and I remembered reading it. Then I go to HN and see this posted.)
An interesting phenomenon. I remember reading similar articles about how, in older cities, the closer you lived to the water the more poor you were, but in newer cities the opposite is true. This rings true for many rust belt cities, and it makes gentrification a complex issue because public housing tends to have been built on what has become some of the most expensive real estate today.
This is not the type of asteroid that would end all life on earth. It has the ability to destroy a city, but even if it hit the earth, it would probably land in the ocean or a remote area where few people would be harmed. We should not be alarmed about a 2% x 0.28% probability that a city or town is destroyed in ten years.
Let's also note we are aware of the possible corridor of impact, so if you don't live near the equator in Central America or Africa the chance of hitting YOUR city is 0%. News articles conveniently leave out this detail so they can continue to spike fear and clicks with every micro-refinement.
Yeah, even if it hits, chances are it'll end up in the ocean, and the predicted area of impact isn't anywhere near my home.
I still think the odds of something more destructive happening is higher - earthquake-tsunamis, hurricanes, nuclear warfare, large volcanoes, covid25, etc.
reply