I think this might be a case of expecting a fish to climb a tree. Brains are terrible in fp32 performance, and computers are so far not great at reasoning. But that's mostly because they are made for different things. I'm not sure of this, but i would expect a single neuron firing costing a similar amount of energy as a single transistor firing. The difference is in part that they work differently, but I think the most important part is that they are put together differently. Computers were made for arithmetic while brains evolved for socialising and survival. For most other things you are 100% correct though, we could not recreate a bee or an ant even if we wanted to.

It has been proven that each mathematical reasoning system* either has a statement that cannot be proven true or false, or a statement that can be proven both true or false. In simpler terms, it has been proven that we can't prove everything.

Gödels incompleteness theorem if anyone wants to look it up.

• only holds for reasoning systems that can reason about numbers

I am sceptical of this thought experiment as it seems to imply that what goes on within the human brain is not computable. For reference: every single physical effect that we have thus far discovered can be computed/simulated on a Turing machine.

The argument itself is also riddled with vagueness and handwaving: it gives no definition of understanding but presumes it as something that has a definite location, and also it may well be possible that taking the time to run the program inevitably causes understanding of Chinese after even the first word returned. Remember: executing these instructions could take billions of years for the presumably immortal human in the room, and we expect the human to be so thorough that they execute each of the trillions of instructions without error.

Indeed, the Turing test is insufficient to test for intelligence, but the statement that the Chinese room argument tries to support is much, much stronger than that. It essentially argues that computers can't be intelligent at all.

Whenever I play with other autistic people the game tends to just become a discussion of probabilities and game theory, to the detriment of all non-autistic people at the table. I'm always having a blast though.

Turns out the attacker was an Elon fan. Maybe he should resign himself.

Where is that? Is that on one of the moons of Jupiter?

I've flown with them once, but i was very happy with the experience. That might be because I'm used to Ryanair though.

"It's normal because cards against humanity did it"

Statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged

I mean, the paper doesn't just state the obvious, it also evaluated which policies can and can't be used to avoid this scenario.

The energy difference is only really relevant if the thing you're hitting is significantly heavier or at least similarly heavy like a house or another car. For a person it's still much worse, but that is moreso because of the high hood of the car.

I know pickup trucks are heavy, but I'm surprised they are 16 times heavier than a Honda civic. The more you learn.

It has far more than AAA value to me. AAA games are mostly boring imho.

A good offence is the best defence

If you have a playlist for me it straight up doesn't show unavailable videos. But with yt-dlp you can acquire the unrestricted list with the titles and urls, and then hopefully use wayback to get the videos.

Is this real or a joke? It reads like the "if you don't use the turn signal the car doesn't turn" meme.

So are you saying cah can't do this because it may be misinterpreted by utterly deranged people? Should we just give up then? Anything can be misinterpreted if the interpreter is deranged enough.

Also, I don't know what you mean with "a rising elevator hasn't already risen" but such an elevator would experience infinite jolt and would thus be physically impossible, except maybe if the elevator was a photon or something.

It's not quite strictly worse; some older games are easier to run in wine than natively. But your point still stands.

I've met one; but that case was really stupid: they tried to put on their helmet while cycling and fell. Technically, that accident could have been prevented if they didn't wear a helmet. It could also have been prevented if they put it on before they started cycling though.

I'm skeptical of this. Life doesn't just need a certain temperature, it needs to convert lower entropy energy to higher entropy. A uniform environment temperature does not provide any usable energy. You would still need a star or some other energy source.

Category theorist: hold my beer.

The factorio space age dlc. Particularly track 06 from Fulgora.