It is, literally, a movie with something for everyone.

And that's exactly the sort of thing I'm objecting to. Conflating things for dramatic effect is also known as "lying".

> If MMA is on fire, it will produce acrolein.

Citation needed. It burns hot enough that in open air the vast majority of the carbon will go to CO₂ or CO. Oxygen starved, I'd expect the hydrogens to burn off leaving soot. There may be some trace amount of acrolein, but that's true of cooked food too.

https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AC127140100&...

The pricing so far has been a classic case of loss-leader to build market share and ramp up until you can find a moat. Normally, the huge cost of training would provide such a moat, or the amount of training data required, but both of those seem to have been overcome by enough players to keep the ball in play. The next target to keep out the riffraff seems to be "Gigawatts of Data Center" (gack, I hate that metric!) and you might think that it would hold, given the finite size of the planet.

But in space, no one can hear you bleed cash, so...

On the plus side, it gets easier with practice.

Because the alternative is a rather sociopathic level of schadenfreude.

A tool that doesn't break but does smell like a refinery or damages nearby electronics when used, gets strangely hot or inexplicably changes shape when idle, etc. should still be replaced.

You don't get the satisfying tactile flick-click of the real thing, but still, for about 0.06% of us, this brings an enormous smile!

:)

I think that's why you aren't seeing what people are talking about then. It's being pitched as "one long shot", folks are seeing the cut at :44 and saying "no it isn't!"

It's also not as hard as it might seem because they could track the countdown and cue him at the appropriate time.

The only reason we are having the argument at all is that people see LLMs responding appropriately to language, and _from_that_ conclude that LLMs may be conscious. You even sneak this in yourself when you say "George Lemoine and Richard Dawkins didn't base their judgments on consciousness on such an entailment, but rather on the specifics of what the LLMs said to them" -- in other words, they wouldn't have had judgements in the first place if the LLMs had not "said things to them".

Oh wait, no, I'm an e-addict. Drat! Curse this monkey!

You're saying the discovery that humans can process language without being conscious "couldn't possibly" inform the debate about LLMs? When that debate is literal predicated on the assumption that the ability to process language implies consciousness?

This is a counter example to the fundamental assumption of that argument. Without that, you are left with something like "if we ignore their ability to to process language, do we have any reason to suppose that LLMs (as opposed to, say, a spread sheet or stats package) are conscious?"