I think one reason it's discouraged is that it's not completely clear how long it lasts, and getting it early may result in less protection later in life. Also it's only been tested in that age group. (At least, this is what I heard when I researched getting it early a while ago).
> I think one reason it's discouraged is that it's not completely clear how long it lasts, and getting it early may result in less protection later in life.
Can't one just take boosters later, like, one every decade?
Research mathematicians have been finding the tools useful [1][2]. I think those problems are interesting, novel, and hard. The AI might stumble sometimes, but it also produces meaningful, quality results sometimes. For experts working on interesting problems, that is enough to be useful.
That's a motte and bailey fallacy. Nobody said that they aren't useful, the argument is that they can't reason [1]. The world is full of useful tools that can't reason or think in any capacity.
[1] That does not mean that they can never produce texts which describes a valid reasoning process, it means that they can't do so reliably. Sometimes their output can be genius and other times you're left questioning if they even have the reasoning skills of a 1st grader.
I don't agree that LLMs can't reason reliably. If you give them a simple reasoning question, they can generally make a decent attempt at coming up with a solution. Complete howlers are rare from cutting-edge models. (If you disagree, give an example!)
Humans sometimes make mistakes in reasoning, too; sometimes they come up with conclusions that leave me completely bewildered (like somehow reasoning that the Earth is flat).
I think we can all agree that humans are significantly better and more consistently good at reasoning than even the best LLM models, but the argument that LLMs cannot reliably reason doesn't seem to match the evidence.
In that usage the object (football) ends up in the state of spiralling. So the HN title would, strictly speaking, mean that the magnetic fields are causing the black hole to spiral, which isn't right.
It's probably sort of being mixed up with the transitive verb "to circle", which goes the other way, with the subject ending up in a state of circling.
The data seems to suggest that the number of deaths and mass shootings sort of tracks with the number of guns, and that Finland isn't particularly better off "per gun".
Right. What "reduction in biodiversity" means is that some species will adapt fast enough and some won't. Unfortunately, there is no lower limit to "reduction in biodiversity".
And another fun and powerful technique is "proof by intimidation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation), in which you don't have to know what you're doing, but other people have to think you do.
I don't know enough to say anything more intelligent about it, but I guess if you are reading through comments on this article you might find it interesting!
I don't think it's correct as stated in the article.
Looking at the paper, it basically says: the orbit starting with N dips to f(N) for "most" N, where f is a function that goes to infinity.
So, you can't pick f(N) = 200, but you can at least pick an f(N) that goes to infinity really slowly--a lot more slowly than previous results (f(N) = ~N^0.7924 is mentioned as a previous result).
The authors of the paper are academics in university CS departments with heavy math backgrounds (one with a B.S. in mathematics, another was a visiting professor at MIT dept of mathematics). I don't understand what you mean or how it relates to the article or surrounding circumstances.
reply