Meaning: it might just provide a big advantage.

I don't want to overextend and assume that any advantage extends to LLMs. That rest-and-recuperate advantage might also extend to LLM-based AIs. Or maybe not, and the rest-and-recuperate is mainly useful for biology-based organisms. But there is some logic to it.

> The function of sleep in animals is largely obscure.

In my understanding, it's well-understood that sleep is used to consolidate and store long-term memories (amongst other functions, like cell and muscle repair). They've found this memory-consolidation-during-sleep even in relatively simple animals like bees.

Southeast or central US has considerably higher wet bulb temperatures than Europe does in summer. Without HVAC, there’s a good chunk of the year where it’s too hot to get much done.

It will be a transition, for sure - there would no longer be meaning in “winning the game” in a capitalistic or scientific sense. Anything you want to produce or learn, the AI could already produce or has already learned. Now you have to do it just for the love of the process.

I have a musician friend who likes to say that good artists overwhelmingly make art for their own benefit. Not to advance the world or blow people’s minds, but because something inside of them needs to come out, and art is how they express it. And that part of us isn’t going to go away.

Orders of magnitude more than in prehistoric days.

I swear, if ever we get proper robot maids, I'm going to give mine a sandwich roulette wheel system, with different wheels for different ingredients. "What sandwich am I eating today? Surprise me! --> {Tuna, cantaloupe, malt vinegar, fried asian noodles}"

Surely you mean ascending!

Preserves > marmalade & jam > jelly

I want maximal fruit flavor for combination with my peanut butter.

Which makes me consider other options. Peanut butter and banana is a classic, ofc, but should I try even-more-concentrated fruits? Fruit jerky? Dried mangos? But then the texture would be weird; probably have to chop up the dried fruit, first. Or what about making a fruit-based tea, then using that as the water for making the bread?

Or, hell, we could subvert the entire PB&J structure. Use strawberry fruit jerky as the "bread", and PB + ... banana? as the filling. (Considered various "bread" fillings, like crushed Ritz crackers. I dunno, I'd try it. Strawberry jerky, with a little peanut butter and crushed ritz crackers in between)

Right-click menus can get cumbersome. I've seen a lot of software that suffers from function bloat - not that the functions don't work, or don't play well together, but that the user interface becomes too overwhelming for users as the number of available actions explodes. This is particularly tough for new users.

This is where voice controls could shine: as we interact with computers in more and more complex ways, we need a way to specify our desires simply and easily. And if we can't do so easily, the software has to remain simple to be usable.

I'll talk to a computer, even in an office setting, if it adds enough value. But it's got to be a lot of value. Handsfree while driving is great, Iron Man talking to Jarvis while he's flying around makes sense. Many of us here are developers, engineers, or scientists, and our work has already been co-optimized with mouse and keyboard and whatever software we're in.

But when the software is less well-developed, or when it's not just dealing with technical data dumps, I imagine that a voice interface might be more useful.

So I think this idea has legs. But a successful implementation might also well be decades out.

I was at a festival a year back and unfortunately our camp was near a minor side stage which was running a daytime talent show. I wanted to take an afternoon nap. The sleep ear plugs + noise canceling headphones dulled the moderate noise down to almost nothing.

I'm also on a CPAP these days, but always looking for a better solution so I'm not so tethered to technology.

Last: when I'm trying to lose weight, I have to be careful or I'm also waking up from hunger. Only it doesn't show up as hunger at first, just a kind of mildly-anxious alertness - that's from the cortisol your body releases when your blood sugar is too low during the night. And then later, after about an hour awake, I get ravenously hungry.

So now I'm stuck trying to balance this: given that a lot of my physical activity is in the evening, how do I eat enough, early enough, that I don't sleep badly from too-low blood sugar and also don't sleep badly from eating too much too late?

Bodies are weird

But in the end, it turned out to be biochemistry.

I think, given our history, it makes sense to be skeptical of claims that suggest that the things we don't yet understand cannot be comprehended or replicated.

Yeah, this article seems fine, but looking at some of chris brunet's other articles has me a bit O.O

First time I've run into this with a HN share in a good long while. Not that the article shouldn't have been shared, ofc, but.. it certainly puts me on guard.

Why would an almighty god leave markers in our Chromosome 2 that look like they are from chromosomes 2a/2b in other apes?

It's not just that there's a huge genetic similarities between the chromosomes. Which there are! Chromosome 2 also has an extra, deactivated centromere, which was used in the copying of the previous chromosome 2b, before the fusion. And, remember that chromosomes typically have telomeres at their ends to keep them from fraying apart. In a fusion event you'd expect some telomeres from the end of the ingredient chromosomes to end up in the middle of the resulting fused chromosome. And this is what we see.

Of course God could have created our chromosome in such a way that it looks very much like the fusion of 2 chromosomes from our shared ancestor with chimpanzees, down to the addition of an extra centromere and telomere region. But why would he?

But, I've also got to say, man, please don't be surprised if I don't respond much. I have no offense intended towards you, but from my perspective, arguing with a young earth creationist is about as productive as arguing with a flat earther. There are about 6 orders of magnitude of difference in age between an Earth that's about 6k years old and 4 billion, and those differences should be readily apparent all over the natural world. And they are! We see an incredible wealth of evidence for an old universe.

But... well, horse and water and all that. I can't expect to change your mind any more than I'd expect to change a flat-earther's mind.

Everything from "humans' chromosome 2 is a fusion of two other chromosomes, and we see those two other chromosomes still present in chimpanzees and gorillas and bonobos", which argues for common descent, to "when zircon crystals form, they accept radioactive uranium but violently reject the lead that it decays to, and modern zircon crystals have lead-uranium ratios indicating that they formed billions of years ago", arguing for an old age of the universe. And many, many, many, many other pieces of evidence.

More glibly: "the temperature"

Right. Or he could've been grandfathered in.

But more basically: this is logically valid, but not logically sound. These are two different ways in which something may be "true" or "false", and in this format, it's not completely clear, soundness vs validity. Based on context clues like the absurd premise of pilots -> medical exam, I assumed validity, but it's still a weird format.