I see. You seem quite sure that Iran is not doing this - do you have some local source of information? My friends there said the government does shut down the internet at times (but I am not currently in communication with them...)
The people claiming Iran shut down the internet are the same people lying about the protests, even going so far as to post pro-government protests and mislabel them as anti-government protests. Israel is prepping to attack Iran and the fake “protests” are one of the first steps. We’re being lied to with impunity.
You think many are built without any assistance for coding? My impression was that people were mostly concerned about game assets like graphics and music
I think many are built without the use of gen ai to create assets. Obviously, the term "AI" is flexible enough that you could clarify every piece of software as involving AI if you wanted to, but I don't think that's productive.
I would assume that if a tool is there and the alternative too costly that they would use the tool instead of buring their project. Just today I stumbled over this for example, where they use GenAI as well: https://reddit.com/comments/1prqfsu
Not for coding, but today I stumbled upon these two building their passion project using GenAI, which would otherwise perhaps not be possible: https://reddit.com/comments/1prqfsu
It is nicer to state theorems that hold for all vector spaces, so mathematicians like to invoke AoC. However, in any applications that are practically relevant, you can obtain a basis without invoking AoC.
I don’t think many researchers take peer review alone as a strong signal, unless it is a venue known for having serious reviewing (e.g. in CS theory, STOC and FOCS have a very high bar). But it acts as a basic filter that gets rid of obvious nonsense, which on its own is valuable. No doubt there are huge issues, but I know my papers would be worse off without reviewer feedback
That is a fair assessment. By and large it is used for the former. It is super handy in the exploratory phase of certain kinds of mathematical research.
Sometimes statistical rates for empirical risk minimization can be related to the intrinsic dimension of the data manifold (and noise level if present). In such cases, you are running the same algorithm but getting a performance guarantee that depends on the structure of the data, stronger when it is low dimensional.
Is this falsifiable? I would be hesitant to claim that this is unique to humans. I'd probably agree with dogs, but the line is much blurrier with primates, for example.
I'm open to any evidence. I doubt we can find a Chimpanzee that sat, thought about it for awhile, slept on it, and then decided it's time to live like a Bonobo. I think the best evidence we have are actual metamorphosis that you see from a tadpole over to a frog, things of that sort. We're the only species that can do something to our nature actively.
reply