There's a fish/eel critter that lives that way inside sea cucumbers.

Why would I, a single individual, need two cars? I'd be completely in support of one-personal-car-per-person regulations.

The best places to rent in my country are the buildings owned by the city. Even mom and pop are leeching income off the less-wealthy by providing absolutely no services.

We shouldn't live in a capitalist society. It's a bad system that leads to oligarchy and class division. Economic strength is meaningless when the economy isn't in service of the people. Look at all the rights people in the US have. I'm told they're euthanizing disabled people in Canada now because they're a financial burden on the healthcare system. Capitalism isn't helping anyone except the rich.

But what if she had four wheels?

Oh, I see. Thank you. The differences were too subtle for me, and I only just now learned what a bottom sheet is! :)

Still, it doesn't seem a very significant change. I'm neither pleased nor upset by it, but rather wondering what the point is. Maybe the cosmetic changes are simply a small addition to more important changes under the hood?

I can theoretically vote to disarm my own country, but I cannot vote to disarm other countries.

Glasses are barely an inconvenience; you can't compare them to cancer. A 1% drop rate on making my life significantly worse is terrible odds, especially given the monetary cost.

If you're going to do all that and still end up with "not great", why not just distill it?

I don't really understand how you can think meat consumption is necessary for health and also be against lab-grown meat. Is there some other way you have in mind to address environmental and ethical concerns? It doesn't really help to survive today if doing so means extinction later from climate change.

A quick search (meaning I did not dig into it because it's very hard to read tables on mobile) shows that France has about one third the rate of veganism compared to the global population, and a quarter of the US rate. (I chose the US because they're the poster child for obesity.) While they may be healthy, they're still eating meat.

I think the idea was that he could be invoked by his name, but they couldn't have people going around saying "Jehova" (or whatever) randomly without any cool powers happening, so they made up the rule to discourage people poking holes in their flimsy story.

I'm not sure how humans go about creating ideas, and therefore cannot be sure that the resulting ideas aren't a combination of learned things. There have been people in history who did things like guess that everything is made up of tiny particles long before we could ever test the idea, but probably they got the idea from observing various forms of matter, right? Like seeing how rocks can crumble into sand and grain can be ground to flour. I don't think they would have been able to come up with the idea in a vacuum. I think anything we're capable of creating must be based on things which we've already learned about, but I don't know that I can prove that.

I agree that humans are just flesh computers, but I don't know whether we can say LLMs have overcome human creativity because I think the definition is open to interpretation.

Is the intentionality capable only with metacognition a requirement for something to be art? If no, then we and AI and spiders making webs are all doing the same "creativity" regardless of our abilities to consider ourselves and our actions.

If yes, then is the AI (or the spider) capable of metacognition? I know of no means to answer that except that ChatGPT can be observed engaging in what appears to be metacognition. And that leaves me with the additional question: What is the difference between pretending to think something and actually thinking it?

In terms of specifically "overcoming" creativity, I don't think that kind of value judgement has any real meaning. How do you determine whether artist A or B is more creative? Is it more errors in reproduction leading to more original compositions?