I doubt their models are that bad for simple and common things like cats, probably takes just a handful of tries at most for something like getting the correct number of limbs. They could just mention the number of tries on the side like a little bubble showing up to show “Rendered in 5 attempts” or something along those lines. I wouldn’t think less of the tech personally.

Thought you were talking about the US.

Aren't all zoos technically run by animals? :D.

apt, as we try to contain the complexity of our designs while being ourselves panarchical hyper-systems

Unrelated but "Panarchical Hypersystems" makes for a great company name

Or a rock band. (With a nod to Dave Barry.)

Dovetails with it sounding like a secret society/esoteric superweapon monopoly corp from a Daisuke Ishiwatari joint.

On that note, "Esoteric Superweapon Monopoly Corp" would also make a great band name.

Lower intelligence animals....oh wait

I once saw an interview with a guy that designed garbage cans for National Parks. When asked what the hardest part of the job was he said, “accounting for the considerable overlap between the dumbest humans and the smartest bears”.

Time complexity is hardly pure math, there are tons of practical uses in addition to the "purer" parts.

One point of the article is that much of what falls under complexity theory is indeed useless pure math masquerading as useful applied math.

>gender is very clearly a social construct and we shouldn't get hung up on colors or names

Why? Is there some reason we shouldn't get "hung up" about social constructs? Can you argue a reason for this without reference to other social constructs?

Can you argue the reverse, i.e. why we should get hung up on social constructs, without reference to other social constructs?

The reason is we already do, humans like to get hung up about social constructs, we do it all the time, just like we’re doing now talking about social constructs. Talking about social constructs is itself a social construct. So no, I can’t without reference to social constructs and I don’t need to, I’m not the one arguing that social constructs are somehow not worthy of getting hung up about, my point was the opposite, we do so all the time and only for some social constructs do some people feel the need to say that we shouldn’t engage about it because it’s a social construct, even while they are engaging in a social construct (conversation) in order to do so.

> Talking about social constructs is itself a social construct.

No, it's not, and this gives me the distinct impression you don't know what people mean when they talk about "social constructs".

It absolutely is, you're just clueless about pragmatics. There's a whole branch of linguistics centered around the idea of conversations as a means of human communication and it is decidedly a social science. Maybe don't assume you know what you're talking about and form impressions about people while missing basic ideas yourself. I also distinctly get the impression of you being a pseudo-intellectual given you use vague terms without clarifying your own idea of them. How about you define "what people mean"? Sounds very similar to Trumpian "people are saying" imo.

In that case, please help me understand your initial objection:

>> gender is very clearly a social construct and we shouldn't get hung up on colors or names

> Why? Is there some reason we shouldn't get "hung up" about social constructs? Can you argue a reason for this without reference to other social constructs?

How does this question relate to the initial quote? You seem to interpret "we shouldn't get hung up" in some way I don't understand, e.g. as "we should get rid of all social constructs", when it obviously doesn't imply that? Still, why would you ask for something you define to be impossible, without sharing that definition?

You could just voice your critique from the start, and then others could argue with your actual position and interpretation.

Sure, in this context I feel that using something like a color or a name to infer characteristics about the individual person is arbitrarily decided, prone to inaccuracies, and generally does not provide much material benefit. I’m not saying all social constructs are not worth getting hung up on - I do rather like governments / modern social contracts and would not advocate for anarchy - but recognizing and dismissing or deprioritizing some constructs should occur more often. Organized religion largely fits in that bucket, at least to me.

The link doesn't support your claim. There is no evidence of a reversal, and the original researcher most subsequent authors cited apparently never suggested there was, only that it was inconsistently applied.

I would think people who find it hard to accept their loved one’s body decomposing would not like the idea of it burning to ashes either.

You're not contradicting anything the poster said. The reason for a lot of Chinese students and workers having high IQs wasn't the point of discussion, the sheer quantity was, and most people can see they have a lot of such people.

I had been on the pro plan for a few months and recently upgraded to the $200.00 AI Ultra plan because I've gotten good mileage out of 3.8 flash while keeping in mind that it's far from perfect. Argon is better in my experience in terms of reliability (especially in not claiming to have done things it clearly didn't) but I have to agree with the hallucination part, for a "SOTA" model (before Carbon came out at least), it hallucinates significantly more even on moderately complex tasks compared to Astra or Opus while being much slower than 3.8 flash (as expected of course). Another irritating thing is that like the 3.6+ models (but thankfully less often), it has a nasty habit of sometimes recognizing unstaged changes in the branch as not being its own work (whether done manually or with another agent) and deciding to undo them or even delete files. That's something I don't expect any SOTA model to do without at least asking the user.

Gemini so far has also had terrible computer-use capability or tool-use capability compared to ChatGPT (haven't used enough of Claude for these tasks lately to really compare). I tell ChatGPT to make some formatting changes to a LaTeX file I gave it and generate a PDF, it get's the PDF generated most of the time; occasionally the download link doesn't work, but that seems to be a server or link-generation issue, the actual PDF is generated and it quickly fixes the broken link when told. With Gemini, it's a long struggle and I use LLMs for formatting LaTeX a lot, so sometimes if ChatGPT is doing some long-running task for me, I have to begrudgingly give the document formatting task to Gemini, and it's dreadful every single time.

Before Argon was a thing, it once generated a PDF file, then started claiming PDF generation was not part of its functionality and the link that was previously working stopped doing so. I think I had inadvertently jail-broken a functionality because it refused to generate PDFs again and said the first time was a mistake. With Argon, it doesn't deny having the capability, but it takes much longer than ChatGPT, and messes up more formatting than it fixes. Its PDF viewer is also trash and seems like it gets built from scratch every time you want to view a PDF.

If this was in another country that is not predominantly inhabited by people of western/central European heritage, US mainstream media would've been calling these "undercover" agents the "secret police" or "stasi" or some other term heavily connotated with tyranny and oppression.