Omnus

11 ms·

1.
by Omnus 6y ago
I think I'll have an alpha/beta testing period with interested volunteers. Then hopefully sell it. Then after some years and waning interest, probably open source it.
2.
by Omnus 6y ago
I am making a game. I use Vim (infinitely faster and more product than other text editors) and write a single command in my terminal to compile. Vim makes a lot of sense when you want to work fast and don't want bloated development too
3.
by Omnus 6y ago
None of those criticisms apply to these vaccine studies. There are many issues that can arise in trials, of course. But the current batch of 3-phase mRNA-based vaccine trials have all been intensely scrutinized at every turn. I think it wil
4.
by Omnus 6y ago
No. The onus is on you to explain why experts who have devoted their entire lives to groundbreaking vaccine research are wrong. It's like arguing with a 5 year old.
5.
by Omnus 6y ago
I'm not going to explain how clinical trials work and why you should trust that process. Again, bad situations do not invalidate all work being done in a field.
6.
by Omnus 6y ago
"So much faith"? People are just following the science. Are you really arguing that because one bad situation has occurred involving pharmaceutical companies, we should assume every new drug or treatment is bogus or based on evil
7.
by Omnus 6y ago
It'll be dead within 18-24 months.
8.
by Omnus 8y ago
That physical damage to the brain results in loss or impairment of consciousness, and that there is absolutely no evidence that total biological death would entail anything but the cessation of this consciousness. [EDIT: I want to be clear
9.
by Omnus 8y ago
First of all, I don't "hypothesize" anything - I am just pointing out what seems to be the obvious answer to "what happens when you die?". When the brain is damaged or undergoes chemical changes, we know that consci
10.
by Omnus 8y ago
Terrified is the wrong word. Western culture simply understands the reality of the situation. Sure, you can delude an entire society with fairy tales and they will feel better about dying...that's not a virtue though.
11.
by Omnus 8y ago
I'm skeptical that any of those things actually "prepare" people to face death in the first place. Feeling like you're "prepared" weeks, months, or years before the final hours of your self or a loved one does
12.
by Omnus 8y ago
Exactly. Even if you try to make the decision ahead of time with a sound mind, where do you draw the line? And even if the line is drawn, what happens if you change your mind later but you're in the late stages? Which "you" g
13.
by Omnus 8y ago
You know you're missing the point, right? There are some jobs that people just don't tend to enjoy or find meaningful. You can incentive people to do them by paying them lots of money, but that doesn't necessarily make people
14.
by Omnus 8y ago
You don't seem to understand the actual problems with screening. Try learning about the field before implying the FDA isn't doing their job: https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.h6080
15.
by Omnus 8y ago
There is a huge misconception about the value of screening in the general population. It doesn't do what most people think it does. Even with emotional adjustment it is entirely unclear that screening for things like cancer is ever g
16.
by Omnus 8y ago
People were fooled by hype, a usual occurrence with new "AI" technology. That says nothing about how "revolutionary" it is.
17.
by Omnus 8y ago
What on Earth are you talking about? The point was not that anything humans can do within 90 seconds is non-revolutionary when implemented in machines. An artist can create something unique and beautiful in 90 seconds, and a mathematician
18.
by Omnus 8y ago
It "feels revolutionary" to the author, but it is literally only capable of handling the simplest restaurant and hair salon reservations (the kind of thing you could do yourself in about 90 seconds). Seems like a silly headline,
19.
by Omnus 8y ago
Yes - the FDA is (surprisingly?) receptive and psilocybin (among others) could be approved in the next few years, maybe up to a decade depending on results. https://www.nature.com/news/psychedelic-compound-in-ecstasy-..
20.
by Omnus 8y ago
It is entirely unremarkable that people should put "feeling" in italics in order to emphasize it, because it is precisely the thing gets handwavy non-explanations (like yours) from people who refuse to acknowledge the deep mystery
21.
by Omnus 8y ago
There is no such "hidden assumption" - the question is just literally asking what the difference is between the non-conscious program and the conscious one (in your case).
22.
by Omnus 8y ago
People used to make this same argument about why things fall to the ground when you let go of them. "Is it really surprising? Why wouldn't they just fall down? What kind of answer do you want?". You have to allow yourself
23.
by Omnus 8y ago
Well it's not AI or ML really - it's hand-picked algorithmic composition with additional contributions from human composers. The holy grail AI composer would be able to generate unique, creative, well-crafted material on demand.
24.
by Omnus 8y ago
Sure it's well known. But that's not what he was asking. He was specifically asking about the number of cancers in people below 40. 140k is for all ages.
25.
by Omnus 8y ago
It's not "convincing" and there is no sense of "style change" at all - it's very clearly just awkwardly re-orchestrating the melody with some timbral changes. The tonality is often entirely lost (the Rihanna t
26.
by Omnus 8y ago
As a professional arranger and composer, I can confirm that this is indeed unconvincing and disappointing (although I will admit to being mildly impressed by some of the generated orchestra textures, but only because this is coming from a c
27.
by Omnus 8y ago
Presumably the person you replied to is including the potential takeover of nuclear weapons by terrorist hackers, etc.
28.
by Omnus 8y ago
You are correct, it is not, and the book is not relevant in any way to the article, aside from both containing references to the work of Gödel.
29.
by Omnus 8y ago
You seem to miss the point with every response to your original comment. You keep saying things about the importance of things that can't be perceived. No one is suggesting that things don't "make a difference to us" if
30.
by Omnus 8y ago
"We know our smartphones are making us unhappy." [link to an article describing a study that put people in a contrived, artificially distracting situation and then pointed out that they enjoyed their time less] Is that the best ev

More ›