They are just AC units in reverse. The biggest effect humidity is going to have is on how much condensation is going to form on the exterior radiator. That’ll form frost that’ll have to be melted in a defrosting cycle. That’ll decrease performance and efficacy. Low humidity should keep that to a minimum.

Surveillance, recon and range of weapons has drastically changed. Satellites have the capability to identify a surface fleet and long range weapons are now able to be fired from long distances, find and hit their targets.

I think a couple submarines can effectively negate a carrier task force by just forcing the task force to keep their distance by the threat of a missile launch coming from a patch of seemingly empty see. Any surface ship hunting them is at risk of suddenly becoming the hunted themselves by the submarine or by any land based defense system that are in range.

Do they need to be able to fight across the entire Pacific? Their most likely adversaries are right next door and their most likely ally is the dominant naval power already.

I any money spent on a large carrier would probably be better spent on other things. You can spend 10 billion on a single carrier or get a fleet of ~100 F-35s. I would guess mid-air refueling and more planes will get more sorties over likely targets in a conflict than a carrier would.

I also don’t think carriers are going to be the dominant sea power force in a future peer conflict. I think the submarine will dominate the next war. The carrier will be regulated to power projection after the sea is won and made safe to operate in.

It not usually into the airspace. Just into the air defense zone which is over international waters. It’s the nation-state equivalent to “I’m not touching you.”

The Soviet Union/Russia have a habit of sending submarines into Swedish waters.

I believe that’s officially a variant rule. The system itself works fine without a grid. It can be done completely in the theater of the mind.

The grid is just commonly used because it simplifies movement and positioning greatly.

I was kind of thinking something similar. How close would you be willing to physically get to him knowing that at any moment there might be an assassination attempt?

If you want to see how weird it can get look at blightsight. Your consciousness can be blind but your body can still react to visual stimulus.

You are kind of hitting on one of the issues I see. The model and the works created by the model may b considered two separate things. The model itself may not be infringing in of itself. It’s not actually substantially similar to any of the individual training data. I don’t think anyone can point to part of it and say this is a copy of a given work. But the model may be able to create works that are infringing.

That is not actually one of the criteria for fair use in the US right now. Maybe that’ll change but it’ll take a court case or legislation to do.

NPR reported that a “top concern” is that ChatGPT could use The Times’ content to become a “competitor” by “creating text that answers questions based on the original reporting and writing of the paper’s staff.”

That’s something that can currently be done by a human and is generally considered fair use. All a language model really does is drive the cost of doing that from tens or hundreds of dollars down to pennies.

To defend its AI training models, OpenAI would likely have to claim “fair use” of all the web content the company sucked up to train tools like ChatGPT. In the potential New York Times case, that would mean proving that copying the Times’ content to craft ChatGPT responses would not compete with the Times.

A fair use defense does not have to include noncompetition. That’s just one factor in a fair use defense and the other factors may be enyon their own.

I think it’ll come down to how “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes” and “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;” are interpreted by the courts. Do we judge if a language model by the model itself or by the output itself? Can a model itself be uninfringing and it still be able to potentially produce infringing content?

Ah, in that case we need something like MTFDS, make the fucking discord searchable.

I think you mean RTFM. But in this case it’s WTFM so I can RTFM.

Running through Google translate and reading the article

An experimental team from Anhui has worked for more than ten hours and is trying to reproduce the results. They updated the latest progress tens of minutes ago. The results will come out in about three days. Perhaps soon, we will be able to witness the gold content of room temperature superconductivity.

It seems they are in the middle of replicating the results. Not that they have already completed replicated the results.

The actual article title is:

The first room-temperature and atmospheric-pressure superconductor has sparked global enthusiasm, and tens of thousands of people are watching the progress of the Chinese team’s reappearance

when I translated it.

As an AI language model, I must emphasize that AI, in itself, is not inherently capable of ending the world. AI is a tool that operates based on the instructions and algorithms created by human programmers. It lacks its own intentions, motivations, and desires. The actions and consequences of AI are ultimately determined by the ethical considerations and intentions of its creators and users.

However, there are some hypothetical scenarios in which AI could contribute to global risks if not developed and used responsibly. Here are a few examples:

1. Military Use: AI-powered autonomous weapons or military systems could lead to unintended consequences and escalation of conflicts if they malfunction, are hacked, or used without appropriate human oversight.

2. Misaligned Objectives: If AI systems are not correctly aligned with human values and interests, they may act in ways that are harmful to humanity. This could occur due to flaws in their training data, reward functions, or reinforcement learning methods.

3. Economic Impact: AI’s automation capabilities might lead to widespread job displacement, economic inequality, and social unrest if not properly managed and accompanied by adequate policies.

4. Critical Infrastructure Vulnerabilities: As AI is integrated into essential systems like transportation, healthcare, and energy, vulnerabilities could be exploited by malicious actors to cause significant disruptions.

5. Superintelligence Risk: Theoretical concerns about superintelligent AI, i.e., an AI system surpassing human intelligence, could potentially lead to unforeseen consequences if it is not carefully designed to prioritize human safety and values.

To mitigate these risks and ensure AI’s responsible development and deployment, it is crucial for policymakers, researchers, and developers to work together on robust ethical guidelines, safety measures, and regulations for AI systems.

It’s worth noting that while AI has its challenges, it also holds the potential to bring significant benefits to society, such as improved healthcare, enhanced scientific discoveries, and more efficient problem-solving capabilities. Responsible development and use of AI can harness its potential for the greater good while minimizing potential risks.

I wouldn’t compare Belgium sans Gulfstream to Winnipeg. Center of a continent vs by an ocean makes a big difference no matter the latitude. I think it would be much more fair to compare it to someplace like St. John’s. It will still be colder but not to the same extent.