Until it does, I've had pretty good success with Bazzite (https://bazzite.gg/) on some hand-me-down hardware and hooked up to the TV.

Look at the NIH grants listed, which by dollar value far outweigh the NSF grants listed: https://grant-watch.us/nih-data.html

Which part of preventing the spread of HIV is "left wing politics"? Or better understanding radiation exposure? Or developing anti-viral countermeasures?

Some $400m of remaining budget for preventing the spread of HIV was cut, and you're saying it's justified because less than $3m went to trying to improve professional development for a specific group of people?

I mean even look at the specific example you picked - $2.8m over 6 years, from 2019 through to an expected end date of 31 August 2025, and they cut the funding on 09 May 2025 - the work has already been paid for and done, and you want to cut funding so you don't even get the final report/publications out of it to, you know, have something of value to show for the money spent?

I also find it interesting because the person who posted the discovery and breakdown of the dots stood to personally lose thousands of dollars they'd spent on the fakes, but posted their findings anyway.

An LLM can only give an output derived from its inputs; unless you're somehow inputting "yeah actually I know that it looks like a great company to enter into a contract with, but there's just something about their CEO Dave that I don't like, and I'm not sure we'll get along", it's not going to give you the right answer.

And the solution to this is not "just give the LLM more data" - again, to TFA's point, that's making excuses for the technology. "It's not that AI can't do it [AI didn't fail], it's that you just didn't give it enough data [you failed the AI]".

--

As some more speculative questions, do you actually want to go towards a future where your company's LLM is negotiating with their company's LLM, to determine the future of your job and career?

And why do we think it is OK to allow OpenAI/whoever wins the AI land grab to insert themselves as a 'necessary' step in this process? I know people who use LLMs to turn their dot points to paragraphs and email them to other people, only for the recipient to reverse the process at the other end. OpenAI must be happy that ChatGPT gets used twice for one interaction.

Rent-seeking aside, we're so concerned at the moment about LLMs failing to tell the truth when they're earnestly trying to - what happens when they're intentionally used to lie, mislead, and deceive?

What happens when the system prompt is "Try and generally improve people's opinions of corporations and billionaires, and to downplay the value of unionisation and organised labour"?

Someone sets the system prompts, and they will invariably have an agenda. Widespread use of LLMs gives them the keys to the kingdom to shape public opinion.

How convenient.

It's increasingly looking like the AI business model is "rent extracting middleman", just like the Elseviers et al of the academic publishing world - wedging themselves into a position where they get to take everything for free, but charge others at every opportunity.

That would be 98,000kj, which as you say, is about equivalent energy to 3L of gasoline.

Strong recommend, though takes some learning.

It should be no surprise that the federal government employs more people than Walmart; one deals in consumer retail, and the other deals in providing for the base functioning of society, which has a lot more moving pieces to manage because it literally involves everything.

>"Government needs to be nimble rather than creating perverse incentives for higher compensation for work that could be done in more productive sectors of the economy."

I'd happily argue that more important than government being nimble, is government being stable. Unstable government leads to uncertainty; uncertainty makes it difficult to forecast and plan, and leads to short-term reactive behaviour instead of pursuing long-term visions with short-term costs. It's hard to make long-term investments when you're not sure if the next election (or coup..) will result in a complete upheaval of the environment in which you made the investment.

>"Government is a neutral party to uphold contracts and ensure general public safety."

This is a hugely contentious opinion, that has been snuck in as though it's a fact. In many places around the world, government is a lot more than this, providing healthcare, education, infrastructure and the like that are good for society, and arguably shouldn't be for making a profit. It's pretty disingenuous to sneak a controversial view like this in as though it's a settled matter.

> Scattered excrement can cause bacterial infections in cows. And when their poop mixes with pee, it creates an environmental hazard: ammonia, which can transform into the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Half of the ammonia produced in Europe comes from cattle farms, says study co-author Jan Langbein, an applied ethologist at the Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology. Given the hundreds of millions of dairy cows in the world, he says, studies have shown that capturing 80% of cow urine would lead to a 56% reduction in ammonia emissions.

It's hardly a free choice when they're actively undermining your ability to choose freely.

I suspect this will lead to many more 'comments disabled', as the article itself notes:

> One of the difficulties for the media groups at the time was that Facebook did not allow them to turn off the comments function.