Turun

Yes, but at some point it doesn’t matter. The AI is trained to replicate human writing. There will be a point where it becomes so good that the result is a perfect replica, where it is indistinguishable from human text. I.e. even a perfect detector will not be able to confidently declare it as AI written, not ever. Because there is no difference.

I bet AI detection is going to get a lot better over time.

I doubt it. ChatGPT 3.5 is good enough to rewrite small snippets of text with better phrasing, ChatGPT 4.0 can write a paragraph if given enough support. Good enough as in "the output is indistinguishable from what a human would have written.

Of course you can do even more with the currently available tools - and get found out.

There is a way to make AI generated text detectable: by slightly pushing the output towards a consistent pattern a detector can reliably judge long pieces of text as AI generated.
Imagine if the AI is biased towards consecutive words starting with consecutive letters of the alphabet (e.g. “a blue car” instead of “a navy vehicle”.). Not strongly biased, but enough so that when there are 1000 words you can look at the probability of consecutive words starting with consecutive letters of the alphabet and get a clear result.

There are two problems though: this only works with proprietary systems and only with long texts.

I don’t understand the “that’s no how PDFs work” criticism.

Removing data from the original file is the whole point of the exercise! Of course unique tokens can be hidden in plain sight in images, letter spacing, etc. If we want to make sure to remove that we need to degrade the quality of the PDF so that this information is lost in said lossy conversion.

Actually, apple varieties are preserved via grafting. If you take an apple seed, the tree that will grow from it only has 50% of the DNA of the tree that made the apple. So there is absolutely no guarantee that the taste was preserved across generations.

Loth-plagiarien

Lmao! This map is unreasonably funny.

What about auroras? Not /s

Make both hands into a fist and hold them out in front of you so that the knuckles are visible. Now start on a pinky and count the knuckles and valleys between them. Knuckles are 31 days, valleys are 30 (and February). When you switch between hands it doesn’t count as a valley.

Left Pinky knucke: January, 31 days
Left Pinky/ring finger valley: February
Left Ring finger knuckle: march, 31
Left Ring/middle: April, 30
Left Middle: may, 31
Left Middle/index: June, 30
Left Index: July, 31
Right Index: August, 31
Right Index/middle: September, 30
Right middle: Oktober, 31
Right middle/ring: November, 30
Right ring finger knuckle: December, 31

I think it depends a lot on where and when you grew up. Afaik in China it’s very much uncommon to be able to swim.

I’m not sure what to tell you, other than that yes, you can simply take your hands off the handle bars on most bikes if you’re going fast enough.

Definitely JS if you want to also have a website. Use electron to turn your website into an executable for the desktop. Python+qt is ok for Desktop apps, but does not work for a website.

Languages that compile to wasm would also be an option, (e.g. https://egui.rs with rust), but as far as i am aware none of the languages you’ve listed are in that set. (Only go would even be a contender between python, ruby, js and go)

It’s the only proper way .

Fuck your website all my homies use their preferred PDF reader.

Alternatively the y axis could be “blog posts not about …”

Yes, because they communicate with natural behavior (I’m blanking on the word here. It’s behavior they were simply born with)

Language is learned, but you can still “understand” another human if they are angry, crying, or laughing, no matter where they are from.

Reducing carcinogens would reduce the cancer rate a bit. Banning smoking completely would probably be the best first step. But most of the items on your list are either already heavily regulated (radioactive elements, food and water) or don’t actually have any impact on cancer rates (the list of radio spectrum parts)

Also you’re lying to yourself if you truly think that getting rid of modern advances all together would eliminate cancer. Cells sometimes mutate when dividing and in a fraction of those cases it leads to cancer. That’s life. There will always be a chance of that.

git tag "FINAL FINAL FINAL DRAFT - v20"

Fair enough. If you can recognize that you have a strong opinion based on ethics, and are willing to read up on how things are currently done and what the problems are (both with the current way and with the way that your ethics would like it to be) thats fine.

Let me ask you this: are you opposed to professional fighting? Boxing, wrestling, wwe, etc?

I’m not a sports guy (at least watching sports, I do exercise weekly) and would barely notice if those would no longer exist tomorrow. So I am certainly not one to defend their existence.
And yes, I am super critical of professional sport and how much these people hurt themselves. In German we have a saying: “Sport ist Mord”, sports is murder. I think in the broad population it’s also used as an excuse if you’re lazy and don’t want to exercise, but for me it appropriately hits on the problem of professional sport. Some are better than others, for example I have not heard of many negative consequences from swimming on a professional level. But I think the problems that people get from playing rugby on a professional level are absurd. There are measurable levels of IQ drop after a few years of working as an athlete. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would willingly do that.

One difference is that in order to get to such a level you need talent and need to be into it from a young age. Yes, some people can lift their family out of poverty with it. But not because they needed some quick money.
A better comparison to paying big money for participants of clinical trials than sports is selling your kidney. You only need one, technically, so it’s safe on paper. But it’s a surgery that comes with some inherent risks to your life. And there is a reason we usually have two.

And again, the injury is tangential to the performance. In clinical trials a sizable fraction of the “patients” die (cells, animals, humans. The earlier in the trial the bigger this fraction. Animal test are there to hopefully have the number be zero when we get to human trials), until we know what dose is effective and safe at the same time.

Fair enough. It would put a stop on developing new medicine for a while (5-20 years maybe?), but I can understand the opinion that “what’s done is done, we just should not continue doing that”.

Oh, I had hoped for some proper thoughts on the matter. The first suggestion is too vague and the other two are already the status quo. In fact I have heard (anecdotally) someone got treated for something that, with 99.9% certainty, was unrelated to the clinical trial they, were participating in. But it occurred during the trial, so their health care costs were covered in full by the clinical trial. And if you ever witness that participants of a clinical trial were not fully informed you should report it. The ethics committee and lawmakers take that extremely seriously.

Edit: to better explain my previous point about safety. When we talk about a usual job being dangerous what we mean is that you’re supposed to do A, but B might happen and hurt you (build the scaffolding for a house, but pinch your hand when connecting two pieces). Therefore we mandate PPE, maximum working hours, machine assurance, etc. This is possible because the actual job is tangential to the risk associated with it.

A clinical trial is, going from beginning to end: we have simulated this drug in the computer and tested it on cells. Now we need to check for interactions with other parts of the body. For statistically significant results we need 50 animals, we put cancer in them, wait two weeks and then start treating them like we would treat a human who has this cancer. We vary dose and when to give it, maybe the mixture of compounds if the drug is not just a single active component. A lot of the animals will have to be put down when it becomes apparent that this configuration of the drug does not work. But we have a better understanding of the working of the drug in the body now. After that trials move on to human patients. First we start with people who are sick and for whom the current method of treatment did not work. They will die soon anyway, but there is a small chance that the new drug will work on them. Again we vary dose etc, but now we know much better what range of dose is useful. This results in much more difficult to handle data, because taking a few random people will introduce wild variations in confounding factors. But it’s a necessary step to show that the drug works in humans, because we can’t move on to testing the new drug on people for which the old method of treatment would have worked. After this trial is done it is finally time to try the new drug out on people who come to the hospital to seek treatment. The doctor may offer you the chance to participate in a trial for a new medicine if they think you’re a fitting candidate. This trial will test the medicine for the first time against a proper sample of the population. Only now can we say for certain how much better it is than the old drug (or maybe it’s worse) and tease out details from the data (e.g. It’s usually better, but it’s worse if the person has a cold and is overweight when starting treatment. Or it causes severe allergic reactions for people who have asthma that is triggered by grass pollen)

It’s important to note that at every step of the process a drug can fail testing. Researchers want the drug to fail early, because every step costs money and time. When we get better simulations or artificial organs to test on they will be used, because it’s so much faster and cheaper than going to animal trials with a promising drug, only to find out after three months of hard work that it doesn’t work.

Now, the safety concerns in clinical trials is that we have a current drug that works, and we have a new drug that may work. Is it ok to not treat someone with the known working one, just to see if the maybe working one helps? Most people say no. The danger is inherent in the thing, which is why we have such a lengthy process. There is no PPE you can wear to reduce the effects of cancer when the trial requires you to have cancer. We must get to the stage of “it’s most likely working better than the current treatment” before starting testing on otherwise healthy humans.

If you’re a suitable candidate I’m pretty sure they already explicitly ask you if you’d like to participate.

I’m curious what methods you suggest to make medical trials more safe. In e.g. construction we can regulate personal protection equipment and mandate machines to do the heavy lifting instead of the workers. We can mandate more time off and corporate fitness programs to keep the people healthy. But how would you make a safer clinical trial?

If you want to look at it from such a fundamentalist angle, sure, animal testing is immortal. You’d only be able to test new drugs on terminally ill patients then.

If you’re willing to humor me, let me take you on a tanget. I promise it’ll make sense: Do you agree that CO2 emissions are fundamentally wrong (leading to a mass extinction event, etc)?

(I will continue this argument under the assumption that we can all agree on that) And do you concede that these emissions are, for the foreseeable decade(s) inseparable from modern human life? Not that they are a basic necessity to survive, but that you and I are indirectly causing such emissions in one way or another for every day that we are alive and continue with our day to day actions (heating, cooking, buying stuff, transportation, etc). This may change in the future, but let’s focus on today.

(Again I assume that you are not the 0.1% of the population that lives without any modern amenities (you have some way of writing comments on the Internet for example), and will continue my argument) Given these two basic building blocks of our mutual understanding of the world:
Neither you nor me have committed suicide. So there is a reason that we continue on living, despite our continued existence being linked to habitat destruction and animal deaths. We are working towards a better future and try to change that, but for some reason we consider our current lives more important than the lives of animals that are threatened as a consequence of our existence. I don’t know why, and you probably neither. I guess it’s just some deeply rooted desire for survival.

Oh, btw, I am actually curious what your answer is to the 100 rats question someone else posted in the comments. Or maybe rephrased a bit: is there any number of rats (or rabbits or fish or dogs) whose deaths you’re unwilling to accept and that makes you say “no, take my sibling/partner/parents instead”?