I think you may have switched the "of" and "on" when you read the original post. They're saying that the human body can negatively affect radio waves, not that radio waves have a negative effect on the human body.
Also a great way for candidates to filter out employers who play bizarre mind games and think personal trick questions are appropriate in an interview.
Was it anthropomorphizing computers when they named "memory"? Seems to me like it's more analogizing for the sake of easy understanding. Sure, it's not literally the same exact mechanism, but it's certainly modeled after the biological concept.
They used that argument for years to avoid doing WoW Classic, and then it was wildly successful when they finally did. Seems to me like the inability to consider how they could work this into their ecosystem is yet another indicator of how far they've fallen since the golden era.
Amusing to see how attitudes toward AI change over time. On page 6, part of the original text has a footnote apologizing to readers far in the future for outdated speculations, then mentions that future readers "may even be an artificial intelligence rather than a human, how wonderful!"
But just a bit before that in the foreword written in the present day, bars AI scrapers from reading or referencing the materials under any circumstances!
Anyway, this seems fantastic and I'll definitely be spending some time diving in.
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but have you considered that you might need to improve your putting/unplugging habits? I used to have connectors and cords break after around that much time. Around 2018 or so I bought a new set of chargers and decent quality cloth sheathed cables. Because all my cords were new, I was much more diligent about carefully plugging and unplugging (no mashing the port, no flexing across the short axis, no yanking by the cord) and eventually a habit formed. Not a single one of those cords, nor any of the ports on my phones, have broken since then. Even the daily use ones next to my bed!
> LLM-s are not learning on the fly, but I suspect they do log the conversations, their responses and could also deduce from further interaction if a particular response was satisfactory to the user.
Seems like this is hard to reliably do across the board. Sometimes when I stop interacting it's because it nailed the solution, and sometimes it's because it went so poorly that I opted to bin it and do it myself. Maybe all of the mid conversation planning and feedback is enough though.
There have been several projects lately attempting to create running context/memory, and Claude Code also has some concept of continuous conversational memory, but all if these are bolted at inference time, there's still no concept of conversations feeding back into base model training/weights on the fly.
I'm a little nervous about this affecting it negatively. Back when Buffy and Firefly were on the air, they felt so unique due to the dialogue style. But now that'll just seem like every single generic superhero movie. Hopefully it can buck that feeling somehow.
I never got the impression there was much momentum for any more sequels anyway, Serenity felt like the bone they were willing to throw. This was a time before show revivals (rather than remakes/reboots e.g. BSG) were common, it was very surprising when they did it for Family Guy.