Yes they are the leaders in solar which is they are a good example… If the rest of the world was going at thier pace (it’s not) it still wouldn’t be fast enough.

Then we’ve got the degradation to worry about so the panels will all need regularly replacing whilst silver, gold and rare earth metals run out.

Rolling out that infrastructure is not likely to be smooth whilst most countries will be busy footing bills for the ongoing extreme weather. Not to mention the other potential blockers like wars, pandemics and lack of political will.

That last line sounds boundlessly optimistic and condescending in equal measures. Magic is real lol please. Of course I know sunlight comes from the sky and electricity can be used to play games consoles.

Seems pretty realistic to me if Covid is anything to go by…

As of 2023, solar energy accounted for about 4.5% of China’s total energy consumption.

In 2024 solar energy could account for around 5-6% of China’s total energy consumption.

If they add another 170GW in 2025, the percentage could rise to approximately 6-7%.

They hope by 2026 solar will make up 8-9% of the total energy consumption.

If solar is the future then we are screwed because that isn’t fast enough growth… and that is without factoring in the rest of the world who will hit nowhere near those numbers.

Whilst it’s true solar is growing, it is not likely to be the silver bullet you make out.

Another way to look at the source you linked is that despite the ongoing climate catastrophe the US is still planning to add 4% more fossil fuel sources to their grid next year.

It also leaves out the fact that 84% of the current US power is generated by fossil fuels and that figure is not being reduced.

The source is also very US-centric. If we take the IEA’s projections, only 25% of the world’s new energy will be from renewable sources in 2024.

Then there’s the weird choice of counting battery storage as energy generation. At the end of 2022 half of the battery storage was being powered by fossil fuels so should probably be left out of any statistics.

We need people to understand the true scale of the problem rather than generating more hopium. The energy companies have teams of people for that.

The scientific method itself considers any as yet unsubstantiated theory as hypothesis. Applying this to the idea of God would leave one agnostic on the issue.

A couple of prominent examples of religious dogmas disproved by scientific discoveries are the Copernican Revolution and evolution by means of natural selection.

I have somewhat of a pet extension to projection theory… Many people who are anti-gay think that it is a choice as they themselves have made that choice. ie. They are repressed bisexual/gay.

Completely unsubstantiated with no evidence but I find it fun to think about as it would explain their complete misunderstanding of it not being a choice. “I made the tough choice and am living with it, why can’t they?!”

Mmmmm fresh pasta.

For me it is very weird, no one introduced me formally to Lemmy(no one I knew run or heard of it), it felt like it was a legend. I never really got to know how good it was and always felt Reddit and Twitter were lacking, never really in control of your memes, never happy with my content, always downvoting stuff. The years went by and my curiosity only became larger as Reddit and Twitter experience was getting worse and worse. I already had experience shit posting and trolling on 4chan since my school days, so last year I signed up to Lemmy and posted my first meme. Next thing I know my feed is breathing again, the grass was definitely greener here. So I switched for both reasons.

Least contrarian Linux user.

Probably because it’s down. I for one am surprised they have no failover for when Bing goes down.

Nah it’s just SFA with extra steps.

Yeah that’s what I’m hopeful for, was going to suggest the same.

Only reason I bought a Series X was because it was cheaper and nicer form factor than upgrading my PC. Tbh ended up liking it more than I expected due to Game Pass, Microsoft Rewards and QoL stuff like Quick Resume but will likely just go back to PC if these rumours turn out to be true.

For most, I think It’s due to the rumours that Microsoft could pull out of making Xbox hardware altogether, not because people don’t want others enjoying Xbox games.

That would enable Sony to form a monopoly over the high-end console market, which is never good for consumers. Xbox users also have concerns surrounding how they would be able to access their 20+ years of games, friends, achievements, clips, etc. if that were to happen.

Lol indeed, just seen you moderate a Simulation Theory sub.

Congratulations, you have completed the tech evangelist starter pack.

Next thing you’ll be telling me we don’t have to worry about climate change because we’ll just use carbon capture tech and failing that all board Daddy Elon’s spaceship to teraform Mars.

Have you ever considered you might be the laypeople?

Equating a debate about the origin of understanding to antivaxxers…

You argue like a Trump supporter.

To hijack your analogy its more akin to me stating a tree is a plant and you saying “So are these” pointing at a forest of plastic Christmas trees.

I’m pretty curious why you imagine you have so many downvotes?

Spot on.

You posted the article rather than the research paper and had every chance of altering the headline before you posted it but didn’t.

You questioned why you were downvoted so I offered an explanation.

Your attempts to form your own arguments often boil down to “no you”.

So as I’ve said all along we just differ on our definitions of the term “understanding” and have devolved into a semantic exchange. You are now using a bee analogy but for a start that is a living thing not a mathematical model, another indication that you don’t understand nuance. Secondly, again, it’s about definitions. Bees don’t understand the number zero in the middle of the number line but I’d agree they understand the concept of nothing as in “There is no food.”

As you can clearly see from the other comments, most people interpret the word “understanding” differently from yourself and AI proponents. So I infer you are either not a native English speaker or are trying very hard to shoehorn your oversimplified definition in to support your worldview. I’m not sure which but your reductionist way of arguing is ridiculous as others have pointed out and full of logical fallacies which you don’t seem to comprehend either.

Regarding what you said about Pythag, I agree and would expect it to outperform statistical analysis. That is due to the fact that it has arrived at and encoded the theorem within its graphs but I and many others do not define this as knowledge or understanding because they have other connotations to the majority of humans. It wouldn’t for instance be able to tell you what a triangle is using that model alone.

I spot another apeal to authority… “Hinton said so and so…” It matters not. If Hinton said the sky is green you’d believe it as you barely think for yourself when others you consider more knowledgeable have stated something which may or may not be true. Might explain why you have such an affinity for AI…

Title of your post is literally “New Theory Suggests Chatbots Can Understand Text”.

You also hinted at it with your Pythag analogy.

I question the value of this type of research altogether which is why I stopped following it as closely as yourself. I generally see them as an exercise in assigning labels to subsets of a complex system. However, I do see how the COT paper adds some value in designing more advanced LLMs.

You keep quoting research ad-verbum as if it’s gospel so miss my point (and forms part of the apeal to authority I mentioned previously). It is entirely expected that neural networks would form connections outside of the training data (emergent capabilities). How else would they be of use? This article dresses up the research as some kind of groundbreaking discovery, which is what people take issue with.

If this article was entitled “Researchers find patterns in neural networks that might help make more effective ones” no one would have a problem with it, but also it would not be newsworthy.

I posit that Category Theory offers an explanation for these phenomena without having to delve into poorly defined terms like “understanding”, “skills”, “emergence” or Monty Python’s Dead Parrot. I do so with no hot research topics at all or papers to hide behind, just decades old mathematics. Do you have an opinion on that?

I’ve read the article and it’s just clickbait which offers no new insights.

What was of interest in it to yourself specifically?