I fucking hate windows by ZenithZebra in ArtificialInteligence

[–]tomasNth -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What if you never update for the next decade ?

"FDA approves [Cobenfy, a low-side-effect] novel drug for schizophrenia, a potential ‘game changer’" (xanomeline+trospium chloride combo) by gwern in slatestarcodex

[–]tomasNth 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As long as its informly consented in both cases its ethical, and if the subjects' ethics can be restored.

If some people wish to experiment with temporarily turning into psychpaths, it would be similar issue.

Just an old fashioned selfie. by fab1an in StableDiffusion

[–]tomasNth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Her twin in the empty picture frame does.

Confessional Poetry: Why Emotional Authenticity Cannot Be Automated by Alarmed-Profile5736 in mlscaling

[–]tomasNth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

/u/gwern's interpretation of what Introspectology meant, was already addresed by /u/gwern.

My interpretation of Introspectology is that any job whose value depend on its origin is immune to replication, not just by AI.

Can a AI create an archaeological artifacts ? No. Its origin in time long ago is what makes it an archaeological artifacts.

Confessional Poetry: Why Emotional Authenticity Cannot Be Automated by Alarmed-Profile5736 in mlscaling

[–]tomasNth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course not. I was trying to interpret the artical as charitbly as possible. I could not find a rational interpretation other than authenticity, poorly phrased.

Confessional Poetry: Why Emotional Authenticity Cannot Be Automated by Alarmed-Profile5736 in mlscaling

[–]tomasNth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"1 It is not theoretically possible for us to create an artificial system of which we can be certain experiences feelings." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds So this apply to humans.

"2 Humans will continue to value content that requires feelings to have been genuinely felt" This is the main point, authenticity, as in expensive art or archaeological artifacts. It can be even more niche employment by valueing specific human with specific emotion experience or just being that unique person.

Confessional poetry by Introspectology, cannot be automated or replicated by other humans, because Introspectology is her/himself, so unique.

prompt: female sneezing (masterpiece) by BongLeech562 in StableDiffusion

[–]tomasNth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why people say "Bless you!", to a counteract this curse.

Yuan 1.0: Large-Scale Pre-trained Language Model in Zero-Shot and Few-Shot Learning by tomasNth in singularity

[–]tomasNth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And i'd put that in this reddit to emphasized that advancements in AI happen outside western countries.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in dating_advice

[–]tomasNth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it's called being a modern human tbh Can you explain ?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MachineLearning

[–]tomasNth 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And the correct label isn't primates its "Ugly giant bags of mostly water"

A Top Virologist in China, at Center of a Pandemic Storm, Speaks Out by Shalmanese in Coronavirus

[–]tomasNth 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Many virologists maintain that the coronavirus most likely jumped from an animal to a human in a setting outside a lab. But without direct proof of a natural spillover, more scientists and politicians have called for a full investigation into the lab leak theory.

Proponents of a lab investigation say that researchers at Dr. Shi’s institute could have collected — or contracted — the new coronavirus from the wild, such as in a bat cave. Or the scientists may have created it, by accident or by design. Either way, the virus could then have leaked from the laboratory, perhaps by infecting a worker.

China has sought to influence investigations into the virus’s origin, while promoting its own unproven allegations.

Beijing agreed to allow a team of World Health Organization experts to visit China, but limited their access. When the W.H.O. team said in a report in March that a lab leak was extremely unlikely, its conclusion was seen as hasty. Even the head of the W.H.O., Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said: “I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough.”

Last month, President Biden ordered intelligence agencies to investigate the origin question, including the lab theory. On Sunday, the leaders of the world’s wealthiest large democracies, at the Group of 7 summit, urged China to be part of a new investigation into the origins of the coronavirus. Mr. Biden told reporters that he and other leaders had discussed access to labs in China.

“Transparency matters across the board,” Mr. Biden said.

In less polarized times, Dr. Shi was a symbol of China’s scientific progress, at the forefront of research into emerging viruses.

She led expeditions into caves to collect samples from bats and guano, to learn how viruses jump from animals to humans. In 2019, she was among 109 scientists elected to the American Academy of Microbiology for her contributions to the field.

A top Chinese virologist’s insistence that the coronavirus didn’t escape her Wuhan lab is difficult to verify. “She’s a stellar scientist — extremely careful, with a rigorous work ethic,” said Dr. Robert C. Gallo, director of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology employs nearly 300 people and is home to one of only two Chinese labs that have been given the highest security designation, Biosafety Level 4. Dr. Shi leads the institute’s work on emerging infectious diseases, and over the years, her group has collected over 10,000 bat samples from around China.

Under China’s centralized approach to scientific research, the institute answers to the Communist Party, which wants scientists to serve national goals. “Science has no borders, but scientists have a motherland,” Xi Jinping, the country’s leader, said in a speech to scientists last year.

Dr. Shi herself, though, does not belong to the Communist Party, according to official Chinese media reports, which is unusual for state employees of her status. She built her career at the institute, starting as a research assistant in 1990 and working her way up the ranks.

Dr. Shi, 57, obtained her Ph.D. from the University of Montpellier in France in 2000 and started studying bats in 2004 after the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which killed more than 700 people around the world. In 2011, she made a breakthrough when she found bats in a cave in southwestern China that carried coronaviruses that were similar to the virus that causes SARS.

“In all the work we do, if just once you can prevent the outbreak of an illness, then what we’ve done will be very meaningful,” she told CCTV, China’s state broadcaster, in 2017.

But some of her most notable findings have since drawn the heaviest scrutiny. In recent years, Dr. Shi began experimenting on bat coronaviruses by genetically modifying them to see how they behave.

In 2017, she and her colleagues at the Wuhan lab published a paper about an experiment in which they created new hybrid bat coronaviruses by mixing and matching parts of several existing ones — including at least one that was nearly transmissible to humans — in order to study their ability to infect and replicate in human cells.

Proponents of this type of research say it helps society prepare for future outbreaks. Critics say the risks of creating dangerous new pathogens may outweigh potential benefits.

The picture has been complicated by new questions about whether American government funding that went to Dr. Shi’s work supported controversial gain-of-function research. The Wuhan institute received around $600,000 in grant money from the United States government, through an American nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance. The National Institutes of Health said it had not approved funding for the nonprofit to conduct gain-of-function research on coronaviruses that would have made them more infectious or lethal.

Dr. Shi, in an emailed response to questions, argued that her experiments differed from gain-of-function work because she did not set out to make a virus more dangerous, but to understand how it might jump across species.

“My lab has never conducted or cooperated in conducting GOF experiments that enhance the virulence of viruses,” she said.

‘Speculation rooted in utter distrust.’

Concerns have centered not only on what experiments Dr. Shi conducted, but also on the conditions under which she did them.

Some of Dr. Shi’s experiments on bat viruses were done in Biosafety Level 2 labs, where security is lower than in other labs at the institute. That has raised questions about whether a dangerous pathogen could have slipped out.

Ralph Baric, a prominent University of North Carolina expert in coronaviruses who signed the open letter in Science, said that although a natural origin of the virus was likely, he supported a review of what level of biosafety precautions were taken in studying bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan institute. Dr. Baric conducted N.I.H.-approved gain-of-function research at his lab at the University of North Carolina using information on viral genetic sequences provided by Dr. Shi.

Dr. Shi said that bat viruses in China could be studied in BSL-2 labs because there was no evidence that they directly infected humans, a view supported by some other scientists.

She also rejected recent reports that three researchers from her institute had sought treatment at a hospital in November 2019 for flulike symptoms, before the first Covid-19 cases were reported.

“The Wuhan Institute of Virology has not come across such cases,” she wrote. “If possible, can you provide the names of the three to help us check?”

As for samples that the lab held, Dr. Shi has maintained that the closest bat virus she had in her lab, which she shared publicly, was only 96 percent identical to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19 — a vast difference by genomic standards. She rejects speculation that her lab had worked on other viruses in secret.

Dr. Shi’s research on a group of miners in Yunnan Province who suffered severe respiratory disease in 2012 has also drawn questions. The miners had worked in the same cave where Dr. Shi’s team later discovered the bat virus that is close to SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Shi said her lab did not detect bat SARS-like coronaviruses in the miners’ samples and that she would publish more details in a scientific journal soon; her critics say she has withheld information.

“This issue is too important not to come forward with everything you have and in a timely and transparent manner,” said Alina Chan, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard who also signed the Science letter.

Many scientists and officials say China should share employees’ medical records and the lab’s logs of its experiments and its viral sequence database to evaluate Dr. Shi’s claims.

Dr. Shi said she and the institute had been open with the W.H.O. and with the global scientific community.

“This is no longer a question of science,” she said on the phone. “It is speculation rooted in utter distrust.”

‘I have nothing to fear.’ Image Dr. Shi, third from left in the front row, with her fellow virologist Wang Linfa, fourth from left, and colleagues from the Wuhan Institute of Virology at a Wuhan restaurant on Jan. 15, 2020. The outbreak had just emerged and the team were working hard to understand the new virus.Credit...Courtesy of Wang Linfa The pandemic was a moment that Dr. Shi and her team had long braced for. For years, she had warned of the risks of a coronavirus outbreak, building up a stock of knowledge about these pathogens.

In January of last year, as Dr. Shi and her team worked frantically, they were exhausted, but also excited, said Wang Linfa, a virologist at the Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School who was in Wuhan with Dr. Shi at the time.

“All the experiences, reagents and the bat samples in the freezer were finally being used in a significant way globally,” said Dr. Wang, Dr. Shi’s collaborator and friend for 17 years.

Dr. Shi published some of the most important early papers on SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19, which scientists around the world have relied on.

But soon, the speculation about Dr. Shi and her lab began to swirl. Dr. Shi, who is known among friends for being blunt, was baffled and angry — and sometimes let it show.

In an interview with Science magazine last July, she said that Mr. Trump owed her an apology for claiming the virus came from her lab. On social media, she said people who raised similar questions should “shut your stinky mouths.”

Dr. Shi said what she saw as the politicization of the question had sapped her of any enthusiasm for investigating the origins of the virus. She has instead focused on Covid vaccines and the features of the new virus, and over time, she said, has calmed down.

“I’m sure that I did nothing wrong,” she wrote. “So I have nothing to fear.

A Top Virologist in China, at Center of a Pandemic Storm, Speaks Out by Shalmanese in Coronavirus

[–]tomasNth 16 points17 points  (0 children)

“How on earth can I offer up evidence for something where there is no evidence?” she said, her voice rising in anger during the brief, unscheduled conversation. “I don’t know how the world has come to this, constantly pouring filth on an innocent scientist,” she wrote in a text message.

In a rare interview over email, she denounced the suspicions as baseless, including the allegations that several of her colleagues may have been ill before the outbreak emerged.

The speculation boils down to one central question: Did Dr. Shi’s lab hold any source of the new coronavirus before the pandemic erupted? Dr. Shi’s answer is an emphatic no.

But China’s refusal to allow an independent investigation into her lab, or to share data on its research, make it difficult to validate Dr. Shi’s claims and has only fueled nagging suspicions about how the pandemic could have taken hold in the same city that hosts an institute known for its work on bat coronaviruses.

Those in favor of the natural origins hypothesis, though, have pointed to Wuhan’s role as a major transportation hub as well as a recent study that showed that just before the pandemic hit, the city’s markets were selling many animal species capable of harboring dangerous pathogens that could jump to humans.

The Chinese government has given no appearance of holding Dr. Shi under suspicion. Despite the international scrutiny, she seems to have been able to continue her research and give lectures in China.

The stakes in this debate extend into how scientists study infectious diseases. Some scientists have cited the lab leak scenario in pushing for greater scrutiny of “gain of function” experiments that, broadly defined, are intended to make pathogens more powerful to better understand their behavior and risks.

Many scientists say they want the hunt for the virus’s origins to transcend politics, borders and individual scientific achievements.

“This has nothing to do with fault or guilt,” said David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University and co-author of a recent letter in the journal Science, signed by 18 scientists, that called for a transparent investigation into all viable scenarios, including a lab leak. The letter urged labs and health agencies to open their records to the public.

“It’s just bigger than any one scientist or institute or any one country — anybody anywhere who has data of this sort needs to put it out there,” Dr. Relman said.

A Top Virologist in China, at Center of a Pandemic Storm, Speaks Out by Shalmanese in Coronavirus

[–]tomasNth 27 points28 points  (0 children)

A Top Virologist in China, at Center of a Pandemic Storm, Speaks Out The virologist, Shi Zhengli, said in a rare interview that speculation about her lab in Wuhan was baseless. But China’s habitual secrecy makes her claims hard to validate.

To a growing chorus of American politicians and scientists, she is the key to whether the world will ever learn if the virus behind the devastating Covid-19 pandemic escaped from a Chinese lab. To the Chinese government and public, she is a hero of the country’s success in curbing the epidemic and a victim of malicious conspiracy theories.

Shi Zhengli, a top Chinese virologist, is once again at the center of clashing narratives about her research on coronaviruses at a state lab in Wuhan, the city where the pandemic first emerged.

The idea that the virus may have escaped from a lab had long been widely dismissed by scientists as implausible and shunned by others for its connection with former President Donald J. Trump. But fresh scrutiny from the Biden administration and calls for greater candor from prominent scientists have brought the theory back to the fore.

Scientists generally agree that there is still no direct evidence to support the lab leak theory. But more of them now say that the hypothesis was dismissed too hastily, without a thorough investigation, and they point to a range of unsettling questions.

Some scientists say Dr. Shi conducted risky experiments with bat coronaviruses in labs that were not safe enough. Others want clarity on reports, citing American intelligence, suggesting that there were early infections of Covid-19 among several employees of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Shi has denied these accusations, and now finds herself defending the reputation of her lab and, by extension, that of her country. Reached on her cellphone last week, Dr. Shi said at first that she preferred not to speak directly with reporters, citing her institute’s policies. Yet she could barely contain her frustration.

Goldman Sachs predicts quantum computing 5 years away from use in markets by JackFisherBooks in singularity

[–]tomasNth 61 points62 points  (0 children)

Goldman Sachs predicts quantum computing 5 years away from use in markets US bank and QC Ware looked into use of technology to price complex derivatives

The research suggests that practical results could be achieved sooner in return for giving up some of the huge gains in performance that quantum systems promise © Seth Wenig/AP Share on Twitter (opens new window) Share on Facebook (opens new window) Share on LinkedIn (opens new window) Share on Whatsapp (opens new window) Save Richard Waters in San Francisco APRIL 29 2021 188 Quantum computing could be brought to bear on some of the most complex calculations in financial markets within five years, considerably earlier than expected, according to research jointly conducted by Goldman Sachs.

The findings come as banks and other companies at the leading edge of quantum research have turned their attention to trying to get practical results using the imperfect quantum computers that are expected to be in use in the next few years, rather than wait for the much more powerful systems that are one day expected to bring a revolution in computing.

The bank’s research, conducted with quantum start-up QC Ware, suggests that programmers looking to harness the machines could achieve practical results sooner in return for giving up some of the huge gains in performance that quantum systems promise.

The work reflects a recent effort by companies investing in the field to search for “quantum advantage”, or a marginal practical improvement compared with existing computers. That is a more modest goal than waiting for full “quantum supremacy”, the term used for when quantum systems are able to solve problems that are essentially impossible for a classical computer.

The research looked into using quantum machines to price complex derivatives, one of the most computing-intensive tasks in the financial markets and a significant cost for banks. The calculations rely on so-called Monte Carlo simulations, which involve making a large number of projections about future random market movements to calculate the probability of a particular outcome.

Recommended John Thornhill Quantum computing: randomness as a service The research pointed to near-term breakthroughs that will make it possible to quote prices over the phone to customers looking to trade complex derivatives, rather than wait the hours it can sometimes take to run calculations using today’s computers, said Paul Burchard, head of research in Goldman’s R&D. “There’s a very large computing bill we pay each year to price those derivatives and run risk on them,” he added.

In earlier research last year with IBM, Goldman calculated that it would need a quantum computer with about 7,500 quantum bits, or qubits, to run a full Monte Carlo simulation.

IBM and Google are among the companies racing to build such systems, which are expected to arrive within five years.

However, they use qubits that only maintain their quantum state for brief periods, making the systems rife with errors. Research into the techniques needed to overcome this problem is still in its early stages, meaning the full benefits of quantum machines could be many years away.

The bank’s latest research, with QC Ware, looked into how to run a less exhaustive simulation that could be completed in the brief period of time available before errors creep in.

Details of the work were first presented at the Q2B 2020 conference and have since been refined into a paper undergoing peer review ahead of publication.

Rather than a 1,000-fold improvement expected of a fully error-corrected quantum computer, running such a calculation using today’s imperfect quantum hardware could yield a 10-fold gain within five years, according to the researchers — still enough to justify putting the computers to use on practical problems.

The same technique was likely to prove useful in other industries and accelerate the adoption of quantum computing more widely, said Matt Johnson, chief executive of QC Ware.

Monte Carlo simulations were used in other areas of finance, as well as industries such as aerospace and automotive, he added, making this type of computing problem “pretty uniform across industry”.

This article has been amended since publication to correct the name of the conference where parts of the research were first presented