Sorry, I must be missing something, what's the problem here? I don't see OP citing ChatGPT, just that they were explaining their own belief system to GPT-4 and it responded by "simplifying" OP's beliefs into "orchestrated objective reduction". This is exactly the type of usage I would expect from an LLM; OP didn't use it to inform their decision, but to further examine the belief from another perspective or broaden their questioning around it.
There is a damn army of people doing this and I have no idea what they think they're contributing.
My personal conspiracy theory is it's ground work to set conditions for disinformation campaigns: the "I used an LLM/I used ChatGPT" people are there to make you look less critically at the other comments by giving a small queue that since they don't include those terms they just be more genuine.
I’ve created hundreds of millions of dollars of value working remotely over the past 10 years of my career. Companies are entirely free to skip out on that if they like. Fine by me :)
Very curious to see what other astronomers think about this in the comments. My gut feeling is there are almost certainly natural explanations for these. Just seems unlikely we would only be starting to see these now, even with the greater resolution of telescopes & increase in compute to crunch through the data.
If there were 7 of these ripe for the plucking that were actual Dyson spheres, each one would be the single greatest discovery in all of humanity. Just seems a little too easy.
Bayesian reasoning applies here. Natural phenomenon is the most likely cause.
think of it this way: imagine in the future we travel to Alpha Centauri and find sentient life or even the remnants of such. That would be really bad. Why? Because if there are 2 civilizations in our galaxy, how likely is it that they're next to each other? Incredibly unlikely. It heavily implies that sentient life is much more common. Now imagine if we find a third at, say, Barnard's Star.
In Fermi Paradox terms this heavily implies that there is a Great Filter ahead of us and we're more likely doomed than not.
Finding a Dyson Swarm near us has the same negative implications (for us), especially given that the gap between a partial or full Dyson Swarm and colonizing the galaxy is relatively small (~100 million yaers) in cosmic terms so how likely is it that we find a Dyson Swarm that is a) near us and b) in that narrow window between the emergence of spacefaring life and colonizing the galaxy.
That doesn't track. The fermi paradox is "we don't see evidence of intelligent aliens, even though we expect them to be abundant" and the great filter concept is merely an argument for why they would not be abundant.
If we find abundant evidence of intelligent life, there is no fermi paradox, and thus there would be no reason to explain life's fictional rarity. The answer to "where are they?" is "right over there."
How does one tell the difference between a partial Dyson swarm, and occlusion by planetoids, especially in the early stages of development before the planets are formed
No, it's a case of if we presuppose the existence of Dyson spheres, here are 7 objects whose EM spectrum matches what would be expected of such an object and who have no other verifiable explanation.
It's not saying we don't know what causes lightning therefore it must be gods. It's saying we have expectations of what lightning looks like and this looks a lot like it.
There is a significant distinction between "we've found a Dyson sphere" and "we've found an object that has the characteristics we would expect of a Dyson sphere".
I mean, if we have had breakthroughs in resolution and compute, and life really is everywhere, wouldn't it make sense that we would start finding these at some point? Why not right now?
It's flaming but I can relate. Every cross platform UI describes itself as the second coming of Christ. In reality there is always a tradeoff and impedance mismatch. Of course there are more polite ways to point this out.
It's not flaming. An astonishing amount of money has been wasted on the promise of cross-platform mobile development. At this point, anyone continuing to push it is complicit in the scam.
that's not what it says in the article. it actually says "information from all previous tokens can be passed to the current token".
that statement is meaningfully different from "all previous tokens can be passed to the current token". and both really makes sense if you understand attention mechanisms.
Sorry for the misquote but it's a distraction from my issue which was with the usage of the word 'passed'.
Do you pass information from other tokens to a token in the sense that each token processes information from other tokens? A token isn't a processing unit AFAIK, it's just a word part. The processing is not the responsibility of the token itself. My understanding is that tokens may be associated with each other via an external structure but not passed to each other. Or maybe they meant a token vector? And the token vector contains information from related tokens? It's unclear.
To me, 'passed' means data passed to a function or algorithm for processing. It's confusing unless a token is a function or algorithm.
My point is that this language only makes sense if you are already up to date in that field.
reply