Lifeboat Foundation

RALEIGH, N.C. — Particle physicist Hitoshi Murayama admits that he used to worry about being known as the “most hated man” in his field of science. But the good news is that now he can joke about it.

Last year, the Berkeley professor chaired the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, or P5, which drew up a list of multimillion-dollar physics experiments that should move ahead over the next 10 years. The list focused on phenomena ranging from subatomic smash-ups to cosmic inflation. At the same time, the panel also had to decide which projects would have to be left behind for budgetary reasons, which could have turned Murayama into the Dr. No of physics.

Continue reading “America’s Particle Physics Plan Spans the Globe — and the Cosmos” »

Even the biggest investors often make terrible trading decisions for their portfolios.

At an AI summit in Tokyo on Wednesday, Jensen Huang and Masayoshi Son joked about how SoftBank was once Nvidia’s largest shareholder before dumping its stake. The two billionaires are now joining forces on a Japanese supercomputer. SoftBank, which until early 2019 owned 4.9% of Nvidia, has secured a favorable spot in line for the chipmaker’s latest products.\r.
——–\r.
More on Bloomberg Television and Markets\r.
\r.
Like this video? Subscribe and turn on notifications so you don’t miss any videos from Bloomberg Markets \& Finance: https://tinyurl.com/ysu5b8a9\r.
Visit http://www.bloomberg.com for business news \& analysis, up-to-the-minute market data, features, profiles and more.\r.
\r.
Connect with Bloomberg Television on:\r.
X: / bloombergtv \r.
Facebook: / bloombergtelevision \r.
Instagram: / bloombergtv \r.
\r.
Connect with Bloomberg Business on:\r.
X: / business \r.
Facebook: / bloombergbusiness \r.
Instagram: / bloombergbusiness \r.
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@bloombergbusi…\r.
Reddit: / bloomberg \r.
LinkedIn: / bloomberg-news \r.
\r.
More from Bloomberg:\r.
Bloomberg Radio: / bloombergradio \r.
\r.
Bloomberg Surveillance: / bsurveillance \r.
Bloomberg Politics: / bpolitics \r.
Bloomberg Originals: / bbgoriginals \r.
\r.
Watch more on YouTube:\r.
Bloomberg Technology: / @bloombergtechnology \r.
Bloomberg Originals: / @business \r.
Bloomberg Quicktake: / @bloombergquicktake \r.
Bloomberg Espanol: / @bloomberg_espanol \r.
Bloomberg Podcasts: / @bloombergpodcasts

If you’ve recently scrolled through Instagram, you’ve probably noticed it: users posting AI-generated images of their lives or chuckling over a brutal feed roast by ChatGPT. What started as an innocent prompt – “Ask ChatGPT to draw what your life looks like based on what it knows about you” – has gone viral, inviting friends, followers, and even ChatGPT itself to get a peek into our most personal details. It’s fun, often eerily accurate, and, yes, a little unnerving.

The trend that started it all

A while ago, Instagram’s “Add Yours” sticker spurred the popular trend “Ask ChatGPT to roast your feed in one paragraph.” What followed were thousands of users clamouring to see the AI’s take on their profiles. ChatGPT didn’t disappoint – delivering razor-sharp observations on everything from overused vacation spots to the endless brunch photos and quirky captions, blending humour with a dash of truth. The playful roasting felt oddly familiar, almost like a best friend’s inside joke.

Model is featured in figure 5.4 of Visualizing Mathematics with 3D Printing. This is joint work with Keenan Crane.

🧠 Neuromodulation through the eyes 👀

Neuroplasticity, also known as neural plasticity or brain plasticity, is a process that involves adaptive structural and functional changes to the brain.

Founded and directed by Deborah Zelinsky, O.D., F.N.O.R.A., F.C.O.V.D.

Continue reading “The Z-Bell℠ Test: A Breakthrough in Eye-Ear Testing” »

Prefatory Note: Our usual policy at The Threepenny Review is to assign one book to one author. But in this case two of our longtime writers—P. N. Furbank, an essayist, critic, and biographer who lives in London, and Louis B. Jones, a novelist and essayist who lives in the Sierra foothills—both wanted to review the same book. So we let them. We think the results are instructive: not oppositional, not mutually contradictory, but very different approaches to the same subject. We are also pleased that neither Jones nor Furbank trained as a professional philosopher. (After all, philosophical theories, if they bear on reality, should be meaningful to the rest of us.) So here they are—first Jones, then Furbank—commenting on Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, out in the fall of 2012 in both America and England from Oxford University Press.

My stranded trailer in the woods looks onto a clearing where wild sweet pea vies with starthistle, fescue with blue-eye grass and miner’s lettuce, all competing as they’ve done, possibly, since the Sierra first crumbled into soil and started inviting plants to colonize. It is a patch of ground, then, that existed through the geologic ages in the peculiar twilight oblivion of being unwitnessed—until the first Maidu people came along, probably climbing up from the creek below. Before the Maidu, the witnesses of the place were the animals. And now these days I’m here, to substantiate this little clearing’s existence. It’s almost a weary old joke in philosophy, but still a surefire, hard-to-retire joke—that I’m necessary to this clearing’s existence. My mind. The joke, however, is making a serious, small comeback in this century.

A recent study by UC San Diego researchers brings fresh insight into the ever-evolving capabilities of AI. The authors looked at the degree to which several prominent AI models, GPT-4, GPT-3.5, and the classic ELIZA could convincingly mimic human conversation, an application of the so-called Turing test for identifying when a computer program has reached human-level intelligence.

The results were telling: In a five-minute text-based conversation, GPT-4 was mistakenly identified as human 54 percent of the time, contrasted with ELIZA’s 22 percent. These findings not only highlight the strides AI has made but also underscore the nuanced challenges of distinguishing human intelligence from algorithmic mimicry.

Continue reading “Did AI Just Pass the Turing Test?” »

The AI Scientist is designed to be compute efficient. Each idea is implemented and developed into a full paper at a cost of approximately $15 per paper. While there are still occasional flaws in the papers produced by this first version (discussed below and in the report), this cost and the promise the system shows so far illustrate the potential of The AI Scientist to democratize research and significantly accelerate scientific progress.

We believe this work signifies the beginning of a new era in scientific discovery: bringing the transformative benefits of AI agents to the entire research process, including that of AI itself. The AI Scientist takes us closer to a world where endless affordable creativity and innovation can be unleashed on the world’s most challenging problems.

For decades following each major AI advance, it has been common for AI researchers to joke amongst themselves that “now all we need to do is figure out how to make the AI write the papers for us!” Our work demonstrates this idea has gone from a fantastical joke so unrealistic everyone thought it was funny to something that is currently possible.

Learn science in the easiest and most engaging way possible with Brilliant! First 30 days are free and 20% off the annual premium subscription when you use our link ➜ https://brilliant.org/sabine.

A group of physicists wants to use artificial intelligence to prove that reality doesn’t exist. They want to do this by running an artificial general intelligence as an observer on a quantum computer. I wish this was a joke. But I’m afraid it’s not.

Continue reading “AI could prove that reality doesn’t exist, physicists say” »