> I don't know why you brought up records, especially sub-ultra.
To point out the performance difference is universal across all distances/speeds.
> and it very much might not matter because of how many things can go south in such an event compared to shorter races.
So your argument is now RNG plays a bigger role so eventually they'll score a win by luck?
> Yes, these events have fewer participants, but nonetheless, even at the most of elite of these events, sometimes women win, and it's not always because the best man didn't show up that day. Big's Backyard Ultra attracts the best in the world, but it was won by a woman in 2019 and 2020.
Are you arguing for me or against me with this line. That's basically a perfect example of the argument I used in my first paragraph.
I think you're confusing limited participation and what such a small group of people doing these events means for single individuals to "win" an event. Women are more like to win in these events then others because there is less competition overall so you get more anomalous results rather then the male biological differences stop dominating the outcome.
You are right in that "strength" isn't the dominating factor for these events or why males go so much faster/farther but rather VO2 max and for peak athletes males normally maintain a good 10% lead due to biological factors.
The male vs female 100 meter:
9.58 vs 10.49 = female record is 9.5% longer to run
Male vs female 200 meter:
19.19 vs 21.34 = female record is 11.2% longer to run
Male vs female 50km
2:38:43 vs 2:59:54 = female record is 13.35% longer to run
The difference also doesn't really change once we start going really long either
I mean that's probably the most European take I've ever heard the government should be able to read all your messages and companies shouldn't be able to blink more than 3 times a second.
I mean absolutely read any thread about Fabel and it's fill with people complaining about how it instantly downgrades or refuses if anything has CVE in the name.
Other then that there is the whole alignment issue. Models that are 'nerfed' in just about any manner tend to exhibit reduced performance is seemingly unrelated areas.
That said Grok doesn't appear to be close enough to the frontier for that to matter. Maybe if they catch up it will.
I mean I think most people would agree it's completely irresponsible and borderline absuive to own a dog and stay in nearly any city in the USA during the 4th.
People rightfully blame the owners it's not like this is a surprise for them.....
No one actually believes their BS and I doubt you actually do either.
They use so many bullshit and mental gymnastics to "score" Germany well despite their appalling "free speech" laws. I think it's very fair to say anyone appealing to either of these index's isn't even attempting to argue in good faith.
Yes, but classically insurance wouldn't allow a guaranteed bad bet in. Health care is way worse then the classic 80/20 (20% of the people generate 80% of the costs). Pruning even just a fraction of these ultra high cost humans massively reduces the cost for everyone else which is what insurance companies used to do before the government stepped in.
(I mean a lot of this discussion is fucked because healthcare is literally your life but the point still stands)
I mean of course if not 10,000 people could stand in a room, watch someone murder another, and then all 10,000 come and testify exactly who it was and what the jury would not be allowed to convict?
> Current AI companies stole much data from Internet without permissions, and used the knowledge of many people directly shamelessly.
So? It's not illegal and no one seem to be in any hurry to make it. That is a moral dilemma that everyone just agreed to ignore not anything to do with how functional it is.
> It cannot resolve many practical problems well, even in programming area.
It can solve enough and is getting better every month. I live in SF and I take a self driving Waymo at-least once a week including on the highway. I'm already literally trusting my life to AI at this point.
> Do you want the software-assistant to do the important or enjoyable things instead of you? Do you want your assistant in real life to eat the delicious food instead of you?
I work for a living man so yes I want the damn computer to do 99% of my job. When I program for enjoyment I'll do it however I want in my own free time. At work almost nothing is novel enough to actually matter (nor should it be) so I don't care about implemented something that's been built 100x before me.
> I agree that it should require an act of Congress to explicitly delegate this power.
Should ever new "weapon" invented require a new act of Congress? We've considered software subject this act since the 90s.
If everyone making AI is screaming up and down that we are in an AI arms race creating dangerous entities that will determine the fate of the world is the government just supposed to ignore them?
To point out the performance difference is universal across all distances/speeds.
> and it very much might not matter because of how many things can go south in such an event compared to shorter races.
So your argument is now RNG plays a bigger role so eventually they'll score a win by luck?
> Yes, these events have fewer participants, but nonetheless, even at the most of elite of these events, sometimes women win, and it's not always because the best man didn't show up that day. Big's Backyard Ultra attracts the best in the world, but it was won by a woman in 2019 and 2020.
Are you arguing for me or against me with this line. That's basically a perfect example of the argument I used in my first paragraph.