fluoridation

Manuals have been machine-translated for ages, well before algorithms were anywhere close to ready for the task. No change there.

>a limited amount of diplomatic communiques

With zero data to support it, I'd bet good money the vast majority of semi-professional translators (that is, those not employed by publishers but still making some money off of their work) work on fiction, translating comics, subtitles, etc.

Actually, come to think of it, mixed media like those will be the last where machine translation will be able to fully take over humans, just because the text doesn't contain the entire relevant context for the job.

AI will definitely not take over translation for a long time. Machine translation has improved to the point it's mostly no longer incoherent, but for non-formulaic content it's still very hit-and-miss, not that much better compared to 10-20 years ago. For example, something they still struggle with is consistently translating terms coined within the text with consistent phrases.

>A budding painter or a musician could support themselves off commissioned / commercial work while working on their grand opus... but now, the customers just prompt gen AI.

Are you joking? The only people I see using generative AI are either companies, shitposters, and spammers. Who are all these people who have stopped paying commissions and moved over to prompting AIs?

The thing is, there is no real evidence to back up the classification. The assignment between words and objects is arbitrary. A consistent definition for "planet" can be given and immediately after define the Solar System as being comprised of nine planets, with the understanding that a "planet" and a "planet of the Solar System" are similar but distinct concepts. The same is already done in biology with paraphyletic groups, with for example "reptiles" not including birds.

(I say this as someone who doesn't care either way whether Pluto is a planet or not.)

>the Moon's orbit is always concave towards the Sun

Huh?

It's human (as an adjective), yes, but it's not a human, because a human is a person, and there is no personhood without a brain.

Is this line of questioning going somewhere? If the next thing you ask is whether a simulated human is a person given that it has a brain (though simulated), I'll preempt you by saying that simulated humans are people.

So it's an exponential with a negative exponent? The thing about those kinds of curves is that since they have asymptotes to zero, it's hard to tell when you've plateaued.

What exponential?

I understand that. That review process is a bridge that imposes a maximum separation between design and implementation (that is to say, they can be separated so far, and no further). The two can't be fully decoupled.

>The current LLMs are making it quite easy to seperate software design from implementation.

I don't really agree. This kind of division of labor has always been possible, with architects doing the design and engineers/programmers doing the implementation. Architects who design systems with lofty requirements with no regard for the cost of their decisions are kind of a meme in the industry. I don't believe it's really possible to separate design from implementation, unless the person specifying the design is really knowledgeable about the problem space.

Should get a second one, then, if that's the meta.

Fair enough. I've only ever used XMPP when Google chat used it and at work in the days before Slack.

What do you mean? You have to accept a friend request before someone can message you. It's more spam-resistant than email, not less. That said, I don't know if there's anything that prevents spamming friend requests.

What are you doing taking on that kind of risk and starting ventures if your earnings are low? I'm sorry, but if you're a delivery boy living from paycheck to paycheck, you should be trying to get an education, not start a business. That's true in Finland and in the US.

I don't think any bank will give you such a huge personal loan that you could end up in debt for your whole life, since they typically want the loan repaid. The only way I can imagine that happening is if you're a sole proprietor and you get sued or fined. I can't think of another way to get exposed to that much liability.

Fair enough. I was thinking of center of mass as equivalent to the centroid and only taking into account geometric shape, not leverage.

I'm not equivocating anything, I answered your question and provided further information. Yes, it's a real human and it's also a real copy of the simulated human. Your point?

You're just asserting that. Why would the center of mass be further to the right from the vertical bisection? That would make it so the left side has a mass of 12.5 versus 8.5 on the right. If you were to pivot that shape freely from that point, it wouldn't stay balanced, it would swing until it ends up as an upside-down T.

Fair enough. I expressed it that because I was asking a genuine question, not being rhetorical. That was the argument I used to convince myself that my (unstated) intuition was indeed true and wanted to know if there was something I was missing.

Huh. The Spanish Wikipedia doesn't mention it either, just has a brief blurb somewhere defining the Latin phrase.

I'm saying the opposite, that not erasing a phone is not a crime. Meanwhile, building and not exploding a bomb is a crime.

My point is even if it hadn't blown up you would've committed a crime anyway, whereas if you rig a phone to erase its own data upon entering a PIN and the PIN is not entered, you haven't committed a crime. The two situations are different enough not to be analogous.

That's interesting. Where can I read more about this?

It's already a crime to build a bomb, so it's a moot point.

It's not the exact same situation. Whether it's similar enough to be prosecuted or convicted is a different question.

It's 2D because it's the surface of a sphere.

Celestia might be what you're looking for.

I find that highly questionable as a general description of what intelligence does. That's more like a description of a general knowledge base. When I think of someone intelligent, I think of someone who's able to draw unexpected connections between seemingly unrelated facts. In the broadest possible terms, I'd call it the ability to make abstractions and analogies. This is not just compression, but the ability to mentally operate on webs of meaning.

Intelligence is compression? What do you mean? Intuitively that doesn't seem right.

>What I don't understand is why LLMs haven't been able to do this yet

LLMs are just trained on what humans have said. Why is it surprising that it's still not possible to reconstruct the intelligence that wrote all that by working backwards? Think of your own work experience. When you look at a piece of code, say, are you always able to discern why the person did what they did, just from the code, with no additional context?

For example?

Um, sure, but my argument is that the function will always be continuous, as long as you're slicing a single shape.