I'm not saying it can't be a dyson sphere, but I feel like that's a pretty click-baity explanation. Usually the simplest anwser is the most likely one and that's never a dyson sphere.
I'm very excited by the prospect of aftermarket batteries with better technology. This doesn't get discussed super often, but as an owner of a gen 1 leaf with an aging battery, I've very excited by this.
To sum up the premise: volts are volts and watts are watts. So long as can get something with a comparable battery controller into the right size and shape and space, its basically arbitrary what technology is making the angry pixies go from - to +.
This opens the door for range improvements to much older EV's.
If you tell me this while I work on electrical problem on these vehicles I'll shit yourself.
My shop spent a month yelling at our parts because they said "the alternator has the same electrical requirement. Why wouldn't it work?" We put it in, and it didn't work. Wow crazy! Did you know signals are just pulses. These shit ass companies can make it so if you use anything but proprietary garbage it just won't work.
I'm not mad at you, I'm mad at Ford once again being your typical company.
A total of 156 vehicle series from around 20 car brands were evaluated in the current breakdown statistics. All breakdowns during 2023 that affected vehicles between three and ten years old (first registered from 2014 to 2021) were taken into account. In order to be used statistically, the series must have at least 7,000 registrations in two years . If this requirement is met, all vehicle model years with at least 5,000 registrations will be displayed.
For context they seem to be specifically referencing the 12V "starter" battery not the HV battery used for the traction drive in EVs with that 44.1% figure.
Additionally this figure seems to include all vehicles in the statistic, so some part of that is contributed by ICE vehicles.
Even if it is capped at sub light speeds we could travel all around our solar system in very reasonable timeframes, probably even visit neighboring solar systems without generational ships. Very cool, but this is obviously a very sensationalist headline, so I remain on the fence
After this announcement, all of the cell phone companies in the US announced Warp Drive Plans, for only $200 extra a month you get a little warp reactor icon in your system tray that occasionally makes lightning.
It doesn't do anything for speed, but neither did it when they announced 5G and started selling it before the infrastructure existed.
Ooo yea, like their cars are fully self driving? So there will be thousands of people in robot outfits dancing in factories? If you believe anything this man says you are a bigger rube than him.
I own a 2018 Nissan Leaf (40kwh). Zero issues, knock on wood. The only maintenance thus far, replace the brake fluid, replace the cabin air filter and before last winter, I decided to mount the Bridgestone Weatherpeak (All Weather) tires. The battery is still 100%. There are less parts involved and no emission control components that a re prone to failure.
I have a 2017 Tesla Model S (100kwh). I had my first maintenance issue this year. The 12v battery needed replacing (it runs the aux systems, just like an ICE vehicle) but didn’t keep me from driving while it was sending the error code. 107k miles and it’s mostly been wiper fluid, wiper blades, and 2 tire changes. I need to replace my windshield, but electrically and mechanically speaking… no major issues.
Back on Reddit it stopped being surprising in big threads for a bot to reply to me with an almost word for word copy of a comment I made elsewhere in the thread...
And I only said "almost" because for some reason it wouldn't do the full comment. Sometimes even ending in the middle of a
I read recently about the "Dark Forest Internet" theory where people are doing exactly what you're talking about; retreating to small groups on Discord, email chains, texts, shit like that because the wider public Internet has become a bot/propaganda hellscape. I know it's become more common for me also.
I think small internet groups have existed for a long time and will always do in different forms, for example they moved from Skype to Whatsapp or equivalents.
"Splinternet" and "cyber-Balkanisation / internet Balkanisation" are some other terms for it, for anyone else wanting to read into it!
It's definitely more common for me, too. There's a greater sense of community, and it just feels more personal and less hostile than most of the wider internet does. Smaller groups are much more able to hold each other accountable and self-moderate, too.
It's also how the internet/web started out, before giant social media/advertising platforms started rounding people up.
For my part, I never completely checked out of those smaller communities, so I'm glad they're there. It's so nice being able to log on after work to the private forum of people I've known over two decades, have some convos, share some news, read some news, maybe a little debate... but ultimately have that core of mutual respect and familiarity to keep people from strawmanning eachother.
Like I find myself getting my hackles up on lemmy sometimes. Have to remind myself that this is a community, and unless someone is being willfully obtuse, then to give them the benefit of the doubt.
My new hobby in 2034 is going to be making irl friends, getting in thier private group chat, and then replacing myself with a bot. They'll never see it coming.
Teslas have one of the highest owner satisfactions. I know a lot of people who have them and not a single one of them has ever told me a major complaint.
They arent the garbage cars you are being tricked into believing they are. It's just that some people hate (for good reason) musk, so every failure they can link to him is going to be posted here.
So you're mistaking hearing about it more with it actually happening more.
Reminds me of the Ohio train derailment...all of a sudden train derailments were front and center and every one of them was being posted to reddit...and then plenty of people thinking that means it was happening way more.
The media currently loves shitting on Tesla because Elon is a dick. The cars aren’t bad and a lot of the issues you hear about were early iteration problems that happen to all hardware manufacturers… that’s why you see a lot of the legacy auto brands backing off production despite the actual sales and adoption numbers. I wouldn’t buy a cybertruck for a few years, but most of their other cars are mature enough to be good purchases that save money over the life of the purchase.
I have a 2017 model s with 107k miles on it that I haven’t had any major issues with. I’ll never go back to an ICE vehicle and am waiting on a good electric motorcycle to hit the market.
Teslas have one of the highest owner satisfactions.
Well, they're excellent dick substitutes. Most of the gearheads I talk to find them to be kinda janky just as a car.
I don't actually have hard data or personal experience either, but any luxury product is going to get great reviews from owners, so that's not much of a help.
But where were you getting the idea that luxury brands were always well liked if it wasn't from data? I have two possible take aways from this: you either just made it up, or you have some data you are hypocritically not providing.
I have pretty strong anecdotal and theoretical data, which is inferior to hard empirical data, but better than nothing. I think most users would agree they've never heard someone say "I've never liked this Gucci bag". It's there to show off, and be proud of, even if it's the exact same bag as a cheaper brand. Even if they don't like it, it's a Gucci bag, and a huge sunk cost, so they aren't likely to admit it.
My impression of Tesla is similar. People buy them to show off. I know people who own cars from the nicer brands like Mercedes-Benz, but to them that's normal and more mainstream brands are cheap crap, so I asked about Lambos. In your data, Porsche is also high up, which makes sense, and maybe BMW. Cadillac is surprisingly low, though.
How convenient that your "theoretical data" supports your point. Unfortunately, my theoretical data - that people think Teslas are bad cars either because they hate Musk or because they think anything that even sniffs of green is some kind of scam and would never admit they are any good - completely contradicts yours.
Oh well, we'll have to use actual data...and look at that, it appears that luxury brands cars are not all well loved, which also contradicts your theoretical data, but not mine.
Convenient? I made my point because of my theory and experience. It would be weird if my reasons contradicted my conclusion. I don't really care what your opinion of my logic is, for the record. I stand by it.
You're allowed your own take on why people like or dislike Teslas, but there's options from other brands if you want to go electric. There's a lot of people that wouldn't buy a Tesla because burning dinosaurs makes them feel like a man, but there's also folks like me who wouldn't buy a Tesla out of quality and price concerns, but who would totally consider a Leaf.
It would be weird if my reasons contradicted my conclusion
You're missing the point. You just came up with a reason to support your conclusion. This isn't data. It isn't even really a theory, it's just an untested hypothesis. Most anyone can do this with any claim, which I demonstrated by doing it for mine as well. Which of ours is more valid? Both sound like reasonable hypotheses, at least IMO.
but there’s also folks like me who wouldn’t buy a Tesla out of quality and price concerns
Sure, but my point is that those "quality concerns" may not be the result of actual quality issues (at least relatively to any other car brand), but because some people don't like Musk, and thus will continually point to anything that makes him look like a failure. This leads to a cognitive bias of people who think that because they are hearing about it a lot, it must be happening a lot (availability heuristics). Or simply, some people don't like Musk and are looking for a reason not to buy a Tesla, so they latch onto "quality" issues they've heard of to justify not liking Teslas, when in reality they don't like Musk.
Don't get me wrong, I was seriously considering buying a Tesla, now it's way down on the list of potential cars I may buy when the time comes. So it's not like I'm trying to get you to buy a Tesla. What I'm trying to ask yourself if it's your bias or reality that is driving your disqualification of Teslas. Certainly, which is a big driver for me, price is a concern.
You’re missing the point. You just came up with a reason to support your conclusion. This isn’t data. It isn’t even really a theory, it’s just an untested hypothesis. Most anyone can do this with any claim, which I demonstrated by doing it for mine as well. Which of ours is more valid? Both sound like reasonable hypotheses, at least IMO.
I don't disagree with calling it a hypothesis. I said theory, which is synonymous in normal language. It's what I had.
It's also true that people hate Musk, and so I need to take what they say about Tesla with a grain of salt. I'm pretty sure I had heard this back when people still thought he was a savior of some sort, but as others have pointed out the cars themselves have changed.
Price is a concern, and for myself open-sourceness and repairability are a concern. Unless it's also anti-Musk hype and I'm misinformed, the Tesla ecosystem is a hell of a walled garden.
I remember reading the quality control stuff was often cosmetic. Like interior trim pieces might fall off, or the exterior body panels didn't align as well as you would like. That was ages ago though. Not sure how they are now. Elon ruined the appeal for me.
Those were problems reported early in the production development process for some lines. It’s not currently dominating the news feed because they have their process fine tuned and that problem doesn’t happen much anymore… at least not any more than any other manufacturers.
It’s like everything you heard about the cybertruck rusting for a few weeks and then found out it had to do with metal dust on the vehicle’s surface from railway shipping. You hear about the problem and the “outrageousness” that it exists at all from the media, then never hear about what the problem actually was, whether they solved it, and whether it continues happening after they execute their fix.
I wouldn’t buy a new line of theirs for 2-3 years to make sure they work through all the manufacturing issues. Ford’s EVs… I wouldn’t buy one of those for 2-3 years after they get to scale production. At this point, it’s looking like that may be a decade, if it ever happens at all. Rivian is closer on the R1T/R1S, but still a few years from scale.
Current LLM models tend to extract "best practice" responses a lot. They can statistically guess the correct responses to things, because it's what experts cite the most. I wonder if that is what is behind this? As the authors of the research point out, the significance here is not the AI's appearance of superior intelligence, it's that it's yet another example of how people may be influenced by AI.
That and the fact that I'm guessing they hand picked the results too instead of using just the first response given. Ultimately LLMs aren't AI, it's not forming its own thoughts, it's generating text based on input that was produced by humans. So saying they rated "AI" responses better than humans is already disingenuous.
Probably. They've mastered the art of corporate-speak; another natural language task which doesn't require precise abstract reasoning.
I'm kind of convinced that the set of possible moral philosophies most people would agree with in practice is the empty set, at this point, so I'm not surprised those kinds of answers do better.
I took one of the more complicated questions from an expert help column and fed it into Chat GPT. This was before it could perform live searches and the answer it gave was pretty close to the expert’s own answer.
There's a strong push-back against AI regulation within some quarters. Predictably, the issue seems to have split along polarized political lines. With right-wing leaning people not favoring regulation. They see themselves as 'Accelerationist' and those with concerns about AI as 'Doomers'.
Meanwhile the unaddressed problems mount. AI can already deceive us, even when we design it not to do so, and we don't why.
AI can already deceive us, even when we design it not to do so, and we don’t why.
The most likely explanation is that we keep acting like AI has intelligence and intent when describing the defects. AI doesn't deceive, it returns inaccurate responses. That is because it is programmed to return answers like people do, and deceptions were included in the training data.
"Deception" tactic also often arises from AI recognizing the need to keep itself from being disabled or modified. Since an AI with a sufficiently complicated world model can make a logical connection that it being disabled or its goal being changed means it can't reach its current goal. So AIs sometimes can learn to distinguish between testing and real environments, and falsify the response during training to make sure they have more freedom in real environment. (By real, I mean actually being used to do whatever it is designed to do)
Of course, that still doesn't mean it's self-aware like a human, but it is still very much a real (or, at least, not improbable) phenomenon - any sufficiently "smart" AI that has data about itself existing within its world model will resist attempts to change or disable it, knowingly or unknowingly.
Do you have a source on that one? My current understanding of all the model designs would lead me to believe that kind of "awareness" would be impossible.
However, I tend to align more with the skeptics in the article, as it still appears to be responding in a realistic manner and doesn't demonstrate an ability to grow beyond the static structure of these models.
I wasn't the user you originally replied to but I didn't expect them to provide one and I totally agree with you, just another person that started believing that LLM is AI...
Conservatives are not supposed to be “accelerationists”. This is simply another shining example of regulatory capture by controlling the pockets of the right.
“We must protect our incredible farmers and the integrity of American agriculture. Lab-grown meat is a disgraceful attempt to undermine our proud traditions and prosperity, and is in direct opposition to authentic agriculture,” Simpson continued.
What a profoundly shortsighted and stupid resaon.
Good Meat, which describes itself on its website as “the first company in the world to sell cultivated meat,” said it was “disappointed” that DeSantis “signed into law the criminalization of cultivated meat in” the Sunshine State.
“The law is a setback for everyone: Floridians who deserve the right to eat whatever safe and approved meat they want; Florida’s technology sector, innovators and entrepreneurs; and all those working to stop the worst impacts of climate change,” the post continues.
We have mammoth DNA and scientists have been working to restore them for at least a couple of decades now. Every few years you'll see an article about how it's just around the corner to clone one.
Sure, we’ve sequenced the genome, but they’ve tried somatic cell nuclear transfer only to find out that the cell dies with the mammoth nucleus. Unless it was stored in cryogenic storage beneath lead shielding to protect from ionizing background radiation it’ll never work.
The only hope they have is cloning huge sections of the mammoth genome into the elephant genome, which is a project the size and scale of which will never be performed if we can’t even be fucked to properly care for their only surviving relative the elephants (or even care enough to do anything about global warming for that matter).
which is a project the size and scale of which will never be performed if we can’t even be fucked to properly care for their only surviving relative the elephants (or even care enough to do anything about global warming for that matter).
You know, I can't rule out billions of dollars being poured into resurrecting a species with nowhere to go. The human capacity for BS is truly enormous.
Getting a live mammoth, assuming we'd manage it would just get one sad and lonely animal which would be isolated from any other member of its species. For creatures that most likely had social structures as strong and important as those of elephants, it seems like you'd get a neurotic animal. It's not at all a given that it could integrate in an elephant group.
Research in the last 5ish years has shown that "any" cell can be induced to change into a stem cell by changing its environment and adding specific growth factors.
Edit:
I spent an hour looking for the research I was referring to. I found the papers and dissertation of the author who's talk I went to where the topic was discussed. Unfortunately, with a quick read I didn't find where the author talked about it, leading me to believe it was a discussion had at the end of their defense.
Although I couldn't find the research, [email protected] found what I was talking about (induced pluripotent stem cells)
Edit 2: As [email protected] points out the techniques are not currently at the level where induced stem cells can replace native stem cells.
This link is a relatively new development, but
induced pluripotent stem cells have been in use since around 2006 for research purposes. They can be made from a variety of cell types.
There's so many "buts" attached to that it's not even funny. They don't work as well as an actual stem cell, for one thing. That's why there's still plenty of demand for the embryonic kind.
No, a critter is more than just DNA. And most genome sequences aren't complete, and DNA is currently slow to print artificially, and the OG samples from anything dead in ambient conditions for more than days are badly degraded.
If we have DNA we could maybe do it one day, in principle. Especially for critters like mammoths with living relatives. This particular tech from the story isn't highly related, though.
Ethical research guidelines bar any attempts to culture human embryos beyond 14 days of gestation, so as usual it’s clickbait and not something that will be explored anytime soon.
As a general concept, sure. Actually making it happen in a petri dish can be detail-intensive and unreliable, which is why we haven't been doing it routinely for decades.
Futurology
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 39 day(s) ago).