Just read a little bit on it and Wikipedia disagrees.

Sometimes samples from experiments were sent over to institutes who had an interest in them. Apparently some experiments were explicitly requested by the Luftwaffe or the Kriegsmarine. Also, lots of stakeholders in the military, science and pharma industry made use of these experiments.

And more to the point of documentation for experiments, there are several accounts of prisoners describing how doctors they observed would do test and control groups and twin experiments while writing down all of their results for reporting back. Some doctors like Mengele were said to have documented their victims in minute detail.

Which is to say I'm sure some doctors were literally just doing like you are saying, with no actual scientific process, but it looks like a lot of them took their "job" seriously. This included some insights into how long it takes for death to set in in various circumstances for example or vaccine testing. Like I said, visceral but informing. Absolutely nothing that should happen anymore, but at least we have the data and knowledge.

⚠️ Trigger Warning Obviously.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

Specifically in rescue swimmer training they will teach you to push the drowning person away if they grab onto you the wrong way, otherwise you will be drowning too. You basically need to force them into the right hold, because they are acting solely on survival reflexes and those entail grabbing something and pulling yourself up out of the water, which might sink whatever they are holding onto.

This.

I have taught highschool teens about AI between 2018 and 2020.

The issue is we are somewhere between getting better at gambling (statistics, Markov chains, etc.) and human brain simulation (deep neural networks, genetic algorithms).

For many people it's important how we frame it. Is it random word generator with a good hit rate or is it a very stupid child?

Of course the brain is more advanced - it has way more neurons than an AI model has nodes, it works faster and we have years of "training data". Also, we can use specific parts of our brains to think, and some things are so innate we don't even have to think about it, we call them reflexes and they bypass the normal thinking process.

BUT: we're at the stage where we could technically emulate chunks of a human brain through AI models however primitive they are currently. And in it's basic function, brains are not really much more advanced than what our AI models already do. Although we do have a specific part for our brain just for languages, which means we get a little cheat code for writing text in comparison to AI, and similar other parts for creative tasks and so on.

So where do you draw the line? Do you need all different parts of a brain perfectly emulated to satisfy the definition of intelligence? Is artificial intelligence a word awarded to less intelligent models or constructs, or is it just as intelligent as human intelligence?

Imo AI sufficiently passes the vibe check on intelligence. Sure it's not nearly on the scale of a human brain and is missing it's biological arrangements and some clever evolutionary tricks, but it's similar enough.

However, I think that's neither scary nor awesome. It's just a different potential tool that should help everyone of us. Every time big new discoveries shape our understanding of the world and become a core part of our lives, there's so much drama. But it's just a bigger change, nothing more nothing less. A pile of new laws, some cultural shifts and some upgrades for our everyday life. It's neither heaven nor hell, just the same chunk of rock floating in space soup for another century.

If my computer's power supply was on the fritz and stopped working for a second yet my computer remained just as functional as ever during the few moments the PSU wasn't working. I'd consider that an oddity. I wouldn't say "Oh the PSU still kinda works, the fact that it completely tapped out for a solid three-minutes yet my PC stayed on is not weird at all."

Hard disagree with that analogy.

You are not "working" as a human just because you have supposed memories of the time when you were dead.

The idea of a soul is very spiritual and links only come up in fields that are not generally deemed well established, therefore the existence of a soul is a different discussion.

While I agree NDEs are interesting, they are really hard to research. As other comments are saying, there's no controlled environment. Also the only source of information are the people's memories, there's no other way to understand their experience, and memories can be very unreliable as every lawyer will be able to tell you. Also consider for a second the idea that every human who shares these experiences is talking about a time where their whole buddy was neither in a normal functioning state, nor even alive. They did come back to, but in that timeframe their brain might as well have produced absolute garbage to fill in gaps of their memory. I wonder how different short and long-term memories are of that same time frame.

If we consider your analogy why not change it. Imagine you run your PC and then your power goes out. Your PC is out for 3 minutes, afterwards it turns back on. It will boot fresh ("wake up"), tell you it knows something's wrong because it never properly shut down, and maybe some programs will greet you with error messages. I file you wrote at that exact moment not has gibberish in it because encoding errors destroyed the legible parts of it when your PC crashed from the blackout. But would you consider that document a normal representation of what the PC "saw" during the blackout? What it "experienced"?

Of course people with NDEs telling you what they remember can be valuable and interesting, but unless you can validate that from the outside, their memories are first party accounts of their experience at best and "encoding errors" at worst, so taking them at face value with no ability to cross-check is a no-go for scientists.

It's too much room for subjectivity and wrong inferences, and we already know that when we look of the people associated with the idea of NDEs.

Yeah this sounds stupid but there's some scientific fields that genuinely have that problem, where experiments needed for research are deemed too dangerous and therefore criminal conduct by law. And the scientists that break laws usually do it for the money, but these fields don't make enough money for you to risk going to prison. Also who would sign up for such experiments, even if it was legal?

That's why the Nazis were absolutely vile but at the same time did boost scientific understanding through morally repulsive forced experiments on humans and weapon tests during war time.

And that's why there's good reasons to not advance that.

Maybe Ross was right and politicians think this is an easy w for them as well. Kind of a no brainer for pr.

Just did some very quick tests and this one seems promising.

That's the first time I have heard about it, so that's very surprising.

Yeah that is the weirdest way to flirt. If she touches you, that's more clear but touching your food is not really understood as a display of affection.

it never hurts to throw some resumes around and see what's available.

This, 100 times over. Check what the job market thinks of your skills. Do some interviews here and there. Always plan job changes while you still have one, that's the best way to earn more so that you can safely jump ship.

I also wanna highlight that while it's awesome of you to keep the company afloat by staying as the main dev, you are the only one looking out for yourself. You need to change jobs and get out as soon as is feasible. It's admirable that you think of your boss and colleagues, but you need to make sure you are fine. And if the company can't handle that, that is not something you should think about; you got bigger fish to fry.

Also do it one by one: first, change jobs so you make more money, think about moving in with someone you trust for a while, plan your exit. Second, change jobs to earn enough to afford everything and maybe a little bit of therapy, slowly work up the buffer to make college available again, and then think about how to manage it when you're there. But do it one by one. Switching jobs to earn more and to get out is your top priority.

That said, the resilience you have is an incredible gift. I know it doesn't sound like much but when you're on the other side, it will be a super power that can get you through more than anyone else, and you will see what I see. I'm proud of you for how far you've come and how far you'll go and I'll be here rooting for every step.

It might take a while, but when your PC is working on it you are not and searching for words might be easier ^^

I'm excited to hear how well it works ^^

Long videos or voice notes where you're usually just looking for a small snippet.

Yeah op is just having a crack at the wild situation.

Omg that is spot on. It really looks like they fired everyone but one guy who is busting off his ass to "get a game done" in the same development cycle.

Because you can see he's trying but there's no way he can actually fill this content desert.

I'm getting restraining order vibes

You're probably right.

I do wanna say that as someone with autism, people do not treat it as wholesome in relationships. It's definitely given a bit of leeway but in the grant scheme of things people will respect the idea of autism, but no one actually cares about what I deal with on a day-to-day basis and it sucks because people still get mad at you when they inevitably don't realize a lot of things happen because of it.

I just have to assume a lot of people get used to the idea of mental disabilities, but they can not deal with them in person.

But not as big as th-

I'm sorry

Yes. As much as I hate Diddy, the big charges were very hard to prove and one could say this outcome speaks highly of the jury's regard for a just outcome, and proves they put feelings aside.

Feelings are valid, but you are supposed to leave your feelings at the front of the courthouse, otherwise verdicts would be very volatile and trials would be an indictment on the person, and not what they did.

Definitely Rocholas.

That would be insane from separation of power perspective (which admittedly doesn't look great, but we're not at that point yet).

Because it's so many victims, Epstein was federal, and this means it's in the hands of the FBI, although they would probably have a dedicated team just for this.

But the FBI only interfaces with the DOJ in that regard afaik, so the president should have no say in this. And another agency most definitely does not unless this interjects government processes of those agencies, which it does not.

Because of all the shenanigans going on we can never be 100% sure but this has layers of separation from DOGE.

I think this is an article about this order for summary judgement in Bartz v Anthropic

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/231/bartz-v-anthropic-pbc/

The articles is really stretching it's sources. If you read the order, the judge mentions Anthropic has pirated lots of books just to keep in a library, and thus he grants summary judgement for all of those, which means Anthropic will have to pay damages on all of those.

He does say that the ones they only trained on and that were not pirated are excluded, but that's because this is summary judgement, so the facts are all assumed in the light most favourable to the defendant. That will be finally addressed in a verdict if this comes to trial.

So basically the judge said pirating shit is so egregious, there's no way they can levy fair use for that. Which I think is the right decision.

The article and the court document really paint two very different pictures, which does not speak to the journalistic integrity.