I think this was a failure. The gold standard should be that the if every human driver was replaced with an AI how well could the system function. This makes it look like things would be catastrophic. Thus, showing how humans continue to be much more versatile and capable than AI.

I suppose if you lower the standards for what you hope AI can accomplish it wouldn't be considered a failure.

If every human driver was replaced with AI, this situation would have been fine. All the self-driving cars would have respected the four way stop

But they're exclusively used in areas that allow both human and AI drivers, so this hardly seems relevant.

This but with hate.

Why are you phrasing your correction in the form of a question? I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that he mistakenly thought it was a Stanford study because the link was from Stanford.

> Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base.

That is not what an ad hominem is.

> It does exactly the same, predicts tokens,

That is an absolutely wild claim you've made. You're being way to presumptious.

> Models don't have access to "reality"

This is an explanation of why models "hallucinate" not a criticism for the provided definition of hallucination.

That's a poor definition, then. It claims that a model is "hallucinating" when its output doesn't match a reference point that it can't possibly have accurate information about. How is that an "hallucination" in any meaningful sense?

I think the problem with your post is that it started a list of "incorrect statements" with a statement that wasn't incorrect.

Maybe I have not been clear enough, but there was no list of incorrect statements, as I was criticizing only a title.

I did not say that was anything incorrect in calling a blue-green alga as "microbe". I have only mentioned what kind of "microbe" they had in mind in order to explain why the title is incorrect in claiming that the "microbe" makes oxygen from Martian soil, because blue-green algae, like plants and like any other living beings from Earth that can produce oxygen, produce the oxygen by splitting it from water and by using energy captured from solar light.

There are no known living beings that can produce oxygen from anything else than water, so if such a "microbe" had been discovered, that would have been a much more important discovery than the possible use of cyanobacteria on Mars.

Unlike the capabilities of catalyzing other chemical reactions, which frequently have appeared multiple times in the history of life, the ability to produce free oxygen has appeared only once and then it has been inherited from that source by all living beings that can do this, even if this heritage has been often transferred between very unrelated living beings. Therefore there exists a unique mechanism for this reaction, based on the oxidation of manganese with the help of solar light, which then oxidizes the oxygen from water into free dioxygen.

The Martian soil is full of oxygen, but most of that oxygen is tightly bound on metallic cations, so it would require a very high amount of energy to be dissociated from them.

Nevertheless, it should be possible to develop an electrolytic process for producing oxygen from the perchlorates that are abundant in Martian soil, saving the precious water for other purposes, i.e. for those that need the hydrogen from water, e.g. for making fuel and food.

You're missing the point. Those kind of narrow AI applications are not the motivation for the trillions of dollars being poured into AI. Of course AI has a variety of applications many disciplines, as it has for decades. The motivation behind the massive investment in AI is as forgetfulness said, reap the benefits from "revolutionizing the workplace"

Aren't you forgetting about the software that makes it so easy and straightforward for newcomers to flash programs and experiment the microcontroller?

First, the software is available whether you buy the board or not.

Second, there's no real difficulty barrier, not anymore. There are point-and-click tools, free integrated IDEs, cheap programming dongles, etc. There are more tutorials for Arduino than the underlying chip, and I'm not saying that doesn't matter - but it boils down to the community, not the hardware.

I'd try a some more if I were you. I saw an example of generated infographic that was greatly improved over anything I've seen an image generator do before. What you desire seems in the realm of possibility.