My understanding is that inhaling polonium is one of the main vectors of lung cancer in tobacco smokers. Smoke inhalation is bad, afaik it's the main way people die in structure fires, smoke has carbon monoxide and formaldehyde and all sorts of bad stuff, but tobacco is particularly deadly, and afaik polonium from the fertilizer is a big part of why that is.
Check out the review articles in the “Nature Reviews” journals, like “Nature Reviews Genetics”. These articles are written by experts but designed for a non-specialist audience (with undergraduate science education).
On Facebook, if you go to 'Menu' > 'Feeds' > 'Friends' you will see a feed of only your contacts' activity and none of the suggested posts & random pages on the normal Feed
Holy crap, I knew it was there but didn't think it let you go straight in via a link. Turns out https://www.facebook.com/?filter=friends&sk=h_chr is more or less what I've been looking for for a few years...
In fact https://www.facebook.com/?filter=all&sk=h_chr might just be perfect - it's got my friends, groups and the handful of things I am interested in, in chronological order, and nothing else. Amazing.
Collaborate with other people on your projects. You could do some of the initial work, and then hand it off to others to do the marketing and follow-up. You don’t have to do everything yourself.
Exposure therapy for PTSD, phobias, and other anxiety disorders has lots of evidence from clinical trials. It is based on animal studies of “fear extinction”. You often see good results after 10-12 hours of focused therapy sessions.
Just imagine how useful search engines would be if you had to email someone every time you wanted to click a link. Just keeping up with the literature is typically a dozen or more papers a week, plus skimming dozens to hundreds more if you're actively doing research. That's a lot of email and it's a lot of unnecessary burden for the very nice people who reply.
Piracy and open access are the only scalable alternatives to institutional access.
These arguments are just like the old days when wikipedia showed up. Don't miss the forest for the trees. ChatGPT is a huge threat to google and a bunch of other industries.
Not comparable. Wikipedia has always had a strict policy on citing sources. ChatGPT can't cite sources by design, because its answers are based on synthesis.
It wouldn't be too hard to program at least gpt3 to basically take a chatGPT answer, go to google, scrape results and verify if the chatGPT answer was factual or not and maybe give it a score or rating of factual-ness.
Simple answer adhd, if I could ship a product I'd already probably be rich, instead I'm scraping by as a freelance dev. Though, chatGPT probably could help me code it anyways lol.
It’s funny because when I was in high school the argument was always “books, published articles and other print media are actual source material, Google doesn’t give you that”
Or Google. There are plenty of pages out there that (e.g.) claim that Alzheimers is caused by drinking out of aluminum cans, or that the world is controlled by grey aliens from Zeta Reticuli.
Absolutely as opposed to those things. With Google, if you use a reliable source like Mayo, NIH, even a WebMD, It is clearly more likely to have accurate information than something that proves even numbers are prime. Certainly all those things can be inaccurate but where in the world you think ChatGPT pattern matches it’s information from?
Exactly. ChatGPT is clearly very impressive and useful, but nothing from its output should be treated as valid or factual to any degree.
Information generated by humans will include things like transpositional errors, logical errors, popular misconceptions, and misinterpretations of data. Mistakes happen, but human mistakes are at least tethered to real thoughts/information.
On the other hand, AI will happily spin up a complete fabrication with zero basis in reality, give you as much detail as you ask for, and dress it all up in competent and authoritative-sounding prose. It will have all the style of a textbook answer, while the substance will be pure nonsense.
Still a great tool, but only with the caveat that you approach it with the mindset that it's actively set out to catch you off guard and deceive you.
> AI will happily spin up a complete fabrication with zero basis in reality, give you as much detail as you ask for, and dress it all up in competent and authoritative-sounding prose.
You can't take such articles seriously unless they have been independently reproduced multiple times. So, your hypothetical "ChatMD-GPT" would have to also filter on that basis and perhaps calculate some sort of confidence level.
And it has already likely been trained on correct information and yet it produces bad results. It certainly has been trained data that explains what prime numbers and yet it produces what it produces, whereas using Google and hitting a credible source directly is more accurate and efficient.
Let's say ChatGPT gives you false information 50% of the time. It is still useful.
Just like it is harder to find primes numbers than verify that a number is prime, it is harder to dig up potential tidbits of information than to verify a piece of information handed to you is true.
50% is still useful? A broken watch is useful in that sense as well I guess. I can only see that has useful if you don’t include efficient in the definition of useful.
After Patrick O'Brian's wife Mary passed, his writing lost something. He is famous for the Aubrey-Maturin book series.
The books became darker, sure. But it also lost plot cohesion. There is proof his wife was the one tracking the various plot and continuity lines through his 21 volume Aubrey-Maturin series. The last three are not quite the coronation of a life's work they deserved them to be.
Unpaid? Did they not share household income/expenses, and in case of divorce, were entitled to part (half, I believe) of their ex-husband's wealth? In addition to child-support.
A compensation plan of "room and board + a cheque upon termination" would be considered a form of slavery in most of the first world. Purchasing decisions in single-income families are usually ultimately decided by the person with income, aren't they?
Yes, your wildly misleading characterization of marriage does sound bad. But here in the real world (at least the West, unlikely it applies to the Middle East), "Women drive 70-80 percent of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence." [1]
By the way, nice rhetorical trick of reducing half of all of one's wealth, plus child support and/or alimony to "a cheque".
In 2012 Yasha Levine accused Malcolm Gladwell of taking “$1M per year” in “speaking fees” from “Pharma, Big Tobacco, Wall Street, Health Insurance Industry”:
The tobacco industry was well-aware of the risk from radioactivity since the 1950s. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/big-tobacco-knew-rad...