Kinda fits with the picture of DNN models of brain regions and high capability DNN models also typically requiring high-dimensional spaces, I guess? (shameless plug)

www.foommagazine.org/scientists-m...

Lol as long as it's cute we're good

Good points. I think most intervention and pushback against the status quo here is probably good. I might nitpick that 'fully automating cancer cures' or 'accepting job displacement' could both be contended against, the first as oversimplified, the second for reasons you mentioned. Complex topic!

2/ This week, we need your help!

Take action at NewsNotSlop.org and follow the steps below, because holding media companies accountable on AI is going to take all of us.

Interesting, I'll take a look! Mainly referring to issues from neuroAI, where neuroscientists have shown that we are kind of blandly sliding into the creation of technologies that are very seriously cortex-like or brain-like. (I self-published a 45-page journalism work about this.)

Oh no worries yeah, Foom is a new thing. And I agree, all these things deserve criticism, as well; I was mainly speaking in generalities. I find the Transmitter pretty squeamish, in my view, about engaging with the serious ethical issues of science. But yeah, at least they are *trying.*

A good question. Certainly one thing that can be done, and I say this openly as a science journalist, is that you can support and advocate for good journalism. Dealing with this problem is a defining purpose of independent science journalism; as it has been, well before the issue of LLMs came along.

A good point but I mean I doubt anyone engaging with this post also clicked on the NYTimes post. This wasn't driving engagement for them