The chance that biomedical and viral research could also kill all humans is greater than 0%.

Should we stop doing that also?

Crispr gene editing is an amazing and terrifying technology. We have the capability to edit people in permenant ways which could be passed to all future generations with unknown side effects and consequences.

I believe now we only have a shaky agreement by researchers and countries to "promise" not to do this due to the unforeseen dangers to humanity.

Because it’s a very complex task to do especially with any level of quality and consistency.

Classical algorithmic approaches for data to CAD are quite unreliable heck commercial CAD software still struggles turning scanned 2D plans into sketches with any degree of reliability.

Something of this scale would normally require 1000’s and 1000’s of man hours in manual modeling, placement and quality control.

Some of the latest prompt to CAD agents and models I’ve seen are the most impressive use of AI I’ve seen in a long time.

At least for me this is rather exiting since it gives me the ability to turn many more ideas into reality as a hobbyist rather than spending the entire weekend in Fusion 360.

I'm interested in this, what is the best current method/tool for this task?

If their satellite is 100% ITAR free which is highly unlikely, possibly.

And even then the US government can always find a reason with which to prevent them from doing so.

Is it? What is the cut off these days in terms of number of parameters? And where do other language models such as BERT/ROBERTA which are encoder only fit?

You don’t ask an LLM, but certain LLMs expose internal metrics you can tell how many token candidates where there what was the score which one and which one was selected.

So there are objective ways to control hallucinations as well as figuring out how “correct” the answer is to some extent.

But those scores are only the likelihood of the given token being the next one in a plausible phrase, not that the underlying data is correct.

Yes that is correct but it’s still better than nothing, there are some assumptions to be made such as that the model was not trained on junk data.

There are cases for card not present transactions, fraud and complex refunds but generally yes.

You still need to get to escape velocity that doesn’t change the delta v required does but not by that much you are looking at 5-10%. Maybe a bit more if the atmosphere is really really thick.

Unless you skip chemical rockets altogether there is a pretty hard cap on how much bigger a planet can be than earth before a space capable civilization becomes almost impossible.

Beaver teeth

AI in strategy games always cheats I haven’t seen a single game where the AI wasn’t built around cheating. Once you figure out how it cheats it’s usually a combination of resource multipliers, build time multipliers and not having a fog of war it becomes much essier to beat at any difficulty.

Not always.

For a lot of games it can be surprisingly easy to make an AI which beats the median player even when limited to just basic strategies, simply by not getting distracted by the gut feelings that humans have.

Even for more complex strategy games like say Starcraft II where that's not enough, there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaStar_(software)

There's a whole scene around making bots for Starcraft: Broodwar, using an API (BWAPI) that doesn't allow cheating. They're quite good now, better than most humans. But the top bots still can't beat a pro, or even a high ranked ladder player.

Often, but not always.

I hate the term "AI" applied to games, since AI means so many things and usually implies something smart, "intelligent". But in reality, it is more like a "bot" or a "computer player". And the main goal is not to be super-smart, but to be plausible enough and provide an appropriate challenge to the human player.

There are some "fair" bots in games - like in my favorite turn-based Mechanized Assault and Exploration from the mid 90s. Computer players follow the same rules as the human ones - e.g., if something is not visible to the radar, the computer will not see it. The only "cheat" is the resource boost computer players can have on the higher difficulty settings, but it is totally optional. And as an experienced player, you always let the computer have it, since you want a challenge, and without that boost, it has no chance whatsoever.

Real-time strategy AI is absolutely AI in the standard Russell & Norvig sense of AI. There's nothing about the computer science concept of AI that implies "super-smart" or always trying to outsmart the player (rather than trying to be entertaining).

Continuously shifting the goalposts of what "AI" is is, of course, a well-known phenomenon, giving rise to what's called the AI effect or Tesler's theorem [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

Maybe it is, given that the classical AI definition is so broad, it can mean almost anything. But for me, there's a fundamental difference between something that "tries to be intelligent" and something that "tries to appear to be intelligent".

That is why I prefer to call them "bots" or "computers" - just to separate them from a shifting mess of definitions of what "AI" actually means. It reminds me of "Destination Void" by Frank Herbert, where the main characters were trying to build artificial consciousness and were struggling to define what it actually means.

Thanks for introducing me to the article! I’ve experienced this myself but didn’t know it had a name.

Cognito isn’t a high level product not anymore than any of those you’ve mentioned it’s a CIAM solution.

It's a Clerk/Auth0/WorkOS alternative.

If you implemented it yourself, you would do it on top of those.