I wonder if the call for new statistics for science will help avoid the scaremongering issue? If we can truly find a way of avoiding the false positive problem (we do so many tests on our data we see patterns that could be chance rather than actual) we should be able to build with it a way of describing tests so that Joe Public can understand and evaluate them (well their conclusions, anyway).
Recently read
- Closing the loop: Experimentally validated methods in artificial intelligence–driven protein design - ScienceDirect
- Meridionally consistent decline in the observed western boundary contribution to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation | Science Advances
- How NASA Built Artemis II’s Fault-Tolerant Computer – Communications of the ACM
- GitHub - dylanstetts/agentManagement: PowerShell tool to list, block, and unblock M365 Copilot agents via the Admin Center API · GitHub
- Roast Duck Legs with Potatoes
- The term “AGI” is almost useless at this point
- The term AGI is almost useless
- The Zettelkasten Method in Obsidian: A Practical Setup Guide | Desktop Commander Blog
- S3 Files and the changing face of S3 | All Things Distributed
- Who Is Satoshi Nakamoto? My Quest to Unmask Bitcoin’s Creator - The New York Times