AI isn't even trained to mimic human social behavior. Current models are all trained by example so they produce output that would score high in their training process. We don't even know (and it's likely not even expressable in language) what their goals are but (anthropomorphised) are probably more like "Answer something that humans that designed and oversaw the training process would approve of"

Reminds me when Amazon introduced the Q&A stuff and emailed people that have bought something with questions other people asked. Even though I sometimes didn't know the answer I responded, because I didn't want to be impolite, with sentences like: "Sorry I can't help you with that question" which Amazon just posted publicly in my name. The question emails I got had no information about that and it took me a few emails to figure out that I'm posting completely useless answers to their Q&A feature 🤣

I also think that this is what will happen (not only discussed) but unless we master fusion it's practically just fixing a symptom and we'd have to do that for quite a while and the oceans will probably become too acidic.

There is very likely some step to sit on 🤣. To empty the water you just need a hose and do the same trick people use to steal gasoline (or a pump if you want to be fast and fancy).

Thank you very much. I'll try to fix that sentence later. I'm not a native speaker so it's not always obvious for me when a sentence doesn't sound right even though I pass sentences I'm not sure about through spell checks, MS Word grammar check and chat gpt 🤣

❤️ True, but I think one of the biggest problems is that it's pretty long and because you can't really sense how good/bad/convining the text is it's always a gamble for everybody if it's worth reading something for 30min just to find out that the content is garbage.

I hope I did a decent job in explaining the issue(s) but I'm definitely not mad if someone decides that they are not going to read the post and still comment about it.

I'm not sure if I'd call it the "scientific" one. I'd actually say that the weak juxtaposition is just the simple one schools use because they don't want to confuse everyone. Scientist actually use both and make sure to prevent ambiguity. IMHO the main takeaway is that there is no consensus and one has to be careful to not write ambiguous expressions.

It's not really a calculator engineering problem. If you don't have time to read the entire blog you should definitely check out the section "But my calculator says...". It's actually about order of operations regarding implicit multiplication.

What is the correct answer according to the convention you follow?

Thank you so much for taking the time. I'm also not convinced that APS's notation is a very good choice but I'm neither american nor a physisist 🤣

I'd love to see how the exceptions work that the APS added, like allowing explicit multiplications on line-breaks, if they still would do the multiplication first, but I couldn't find a single instance where somebody following the APS notation had line-break inside an expression.

What could go wrong.

Of course AI does mean something - but it's a very broad term. It's a bit like saying you want to buy a vehicle. Could be a boat, car, truck or even a zeppelin.