Genady

I would like to do the same but there are so many potential hazards in doing so. There are plenty exotic environments on Earth to visit and to explore.

Do the chemists here know about this researcher? What do professional scientists here think about this story? etc. One of the world’s most cited scientists, Rafael Luque, suspended without pay for 13 years | Science & Tech | EL PAÍS English (elpais.com)

Better not.

It appears to be real: Italy’s ChatGPT Ban, A Precedent For The Rest Of Europe? (forbes.com)

Or by wiping out the humanity. Among many other possibilities. You have dismissed my two wishes.

Sure, it's possible. In this case, I have to admit that I fell for it. * I think it is rather a bump on the road. They will find a way around. * Maybe the chatbot wrote the article.

Yes, I want to ask you: end of what? PS. The article starts with

I am curious, what did somebody find wrong with my post above. It relates directly to the topic of the thread, continues the story, and belongs to the Science News forum, doesn't it?

For example, having free or attached ear lobes is neutral to fitness.

This is not necessary. Most mutations are neutral. They might not cause any change in phenotype at all until some environmental or other genetic changes occur. Or they might cause a change in phenotype which is indifferent for the fitness. These neutral mutations might spread in population by a 'random walk' process. Or, they might get fixed because of population split. There are other possibilities as well.

Sufficient. But not necessary.

Only advantageous mutation, is incorrect, AFAIK: there is no such restriction. Other modes of changes in allele frequencies exist, such as genetic drift and genetic draft.

The ban works: OpenAI geoblocks ChatGPT in Italy | TechCrunch

Our other great strength is ability to distinguish between imagination and reality. It is not a good sign when this ability is compromised.

Data regurgitation? Obviously, none of them create a new content, only repackage the same one. Google AI researcher resigns after learning Bard uses data from ChatGPT: report - MarketWatch *And make mistakes while doing this.

I think it is big enough, but it should and can be used more efficiently.

More people => more ideas, more solutions, more diversity, more expertise, more knowledge, more chances, more creativity.

Perhaps they mean this: They mentioned these:

Let's make the question straight. I guess, you don't worry about the 'intelligent' aspect, but about the outcome. In this case, the question is: "Is there a potential that regardless of all mitigation to ensure a good program and very close and control management of the use. That the program could re-write its original program?" It can be prevented.

My point is that it is not a question of a wrong program but of a wrong use of it.

I'm not a lawyer, how would I know? What do you think? I only had an experience with a patent lawyer and with a divorce lawyer. They were reasonable. The OP didn't mention anything like that. I answered with what I wish would happen, not what would make me happy ever after. Otherwise, I'm quite happy as I am. So, I guess, the wish would be, don't break it.

It's a tool and it is up to people what to do with it. This tool can make bad things easier, faster, cheaper to do. Imagine scientific journal boards flooded with plagiarized and fake but well composed manuscripts. SFn flooded with fake science news, machine generated comments, political propaganda etc. Google search returning false results from non-existing sources... These are just a few innocent examples.

My 5 cents based on experience in underwater photography. We used to put a couple of silica gel packets in the housing to prevent fogging during the dive. After each use, we microwaved them for about 15 seconds and stored in the housing to be used next time. They were successfully reused this way many times.

Very well, it clarifies your response. To clarify the last, I hope, misunderstanding I want to point out that my word "we" referred to "us" in your "let's". IOW, it was a rhetorical "we" rather than some non-existent collective humanity that could be encompassed by the theoretical "we".

I didn't ask, what you can do. I've asked, For the reference, here is where you said it: