It is worth investing a little more on nuclear in the interest of energy security. It isn't always a race to the bottom.
A diverse and robust energy grid is composed of various generation sources that differ in capacity factors, environmental impact, stability, availability, etc.
Energy security is way more important than people make out. You'd think that politicians would focus on relying less on the countries that they have political tensions with
The official openai-cookbook (https://github.com/openai/openai-cookbook) used to have an explicit, but buried, call out that instruction-following models like `text-davinci-003` were "Less diverse; less creative; sometimes harder to steer tone, style, etc." as opposed to base completion models like `davinci`.
It stood out to me because it seemed to be an internal admission that this training narrowed the potential of the models.
> Two-headed worms made this way reveal a permanent revision of the target morphology: subsequent rounds of regeneration in plain water, long after the reagent is gone from the tissue, continue to make two-headed worms.
Great work. It would be nice to see the interactions wrap to make a more seamless experience. The particles themselves do seem to wrap around the edges, but the forces do not.
But when I ask it to write a parody of the opening of Moby Dick, and then ask it to correct the first sentences so that they match exactly, it is able to repeat the first paragraph. Maybe it can detect that it's just repeating user input and not accessing actual published text when it does that.
This is great to see. Years ago I created a basic simulation using the same principles of pheromone gradients, one for the nest and one for food. https://youtu.be/VsHc91IhzdI
It a fascinating example of emergent behavior from simple rules.
I've been wanting to find time to revisit the concept and produce an updated version, your simulation seems to include everything I wanted to do and more.
An analogy would be this: it would be like flying in a plane designed by an engineer that calculated coincidentally correct values but arrived at them using completely incorrect methods and calculations.
The output happened to be right but the method to get there was fundamentally wrong and would be faulty if used in other scenarios.
Getting the right answer for the wrong reasons is still wrong in a way, the process to arrive at the conclusion is important.
For the average American, Trump's description is probably more understandable and meaningful than a precise definition.
There's a reason why half of America (~1 in 2 voters) voted for Trump, twice, you know.
I for one don't give a crap about the precise definition of immunity when communicating in everyday conversations; the same way I don't argue with a family relative using a computer science term colloquially. Children are almost immune to covid.
