You're right, and to me it's refreshing to see a promo video that shows how the real product works, rather than a sanitized over-produced edit that takes out all the flaws.
Really? Are you under the impression that parrots are able to synthesize their input and create entirely new, useful outputs which they have never heard before?
Whether Bender intended it or not, the term has an inherently pejorative sense. "Parroting" is not really indicative of what modern LLMs do. However, when most people bring it up as a criticism of "AI in general" in 2026, they're using it as a pointer to all of the social/environmental criticisms, rather than the technological capabilities.
Really interesting - if I understood the article correctly, they're simulating this on conventional hardware, so in order to get the proposed benefits, it would need to be implemented in some other electronic medium.
TLDR: "I think AirPods increase social isolation, I don't have much good evidence for it, and although I started the article by observing how many MORE Americans use AirPods, I completely contradicted myself at the end by pointing out how Germans, who apparently use AirPods less, are still less friendly/warm to strangers than Americans."
"Go tell that to the middle school travel team in my neighborhood."
Why are you even making this comment? The comment you responded to was obviously talking about median wages of the entire US population. Real Wages are near all-time highs - it's just a fact, you can look up the data yourself.
The word "benefit" does not apply here. The only "benefits" patients and families care about are: 1) does the patient live longer, and/or 2) does the quality of life improve in a meaningful way? Amyloid plaques are a surrogate marker, and (as already explained by many people in this thread) have not been established as a causal factor in disease. In fact, some work has even suggested a protective role for plaques. So we do not have enough evidence to say that a 42% reduction in amyloid-beta IN MICE relays any benefit at all to humans.
You are correct that a series of clinical trials, which would take 7-10 years, would clear things up. But for now, we simply don't know.
Flagged. Nonsense puff piece by the university. The headline itself is beyond terrible - this is a mouse model and would need years of further successful research to be able to say that it "restores memory" in any meaningful way, let alone in actual humans.
You are wrong. This paper very clearly does not show that it "works". The debate exists for a good reason - the very thing this paper claims to show is the exact thing the person you replied to was questioning. And that is a central question in all of Alzheimer's research.
There are dozens of studies that show mice improving their memory/spatial reasoning as Alzheimer's models. None of them have led to a proven improvement in longevity or quality of life for human Alzheimer's patients. Some of them slightly slow the progression, but even then you're getting into a gray area - is it really "better" to be stuck in the Alzheimer's fog for longer? Are we actually improving quality of life? It's unclear.
So no, in order for us to say that this approach "works", we would need randomized controlled clinical trials in humans showing a strict improvement in quality of life and/or longevity. This is not even close to that level of evidence.
I have had a family member die of pancreatic cancer before age 60. It is, of course, terrible beyond belief. I'm not sure what you mean by "SOP" in this context. Referencing a bio-plausible mechanism is not actually clinically meaningful. It can provide a direction for study, but does not replace an actual clinical trial. As I said, "a patient can try anything they want".
But since we don't actually know whether such a recommendation will harm or help any individual patient, no one should be taking this recommendation as advice, and at the very least you should not be "highly recommending" specific dietary changes to people based on one anecdotal experience.
They are working on getting in vivo studies going from what I remember - it's going to take a positive result in a trial on real patients to get attention - that's just how medicine works. You have to show it actually improves longevity and/or patient quality of life before anyone has a reason to care.
Unfortunately, anecdotes are not data, and although a patient can try anything they want, there is no way to know that such dietary changes are beneficial or potentially harmful for most patients without doing a randomized controlled trial and hoping for strong adherence from the participants.
For now. Progress in hardware/model efficiency is one of the threats the big AI labs face, because if LLMs become commoditized they can’t make back the billions they spent.
I'm not sure what this comment means - we could always kill cancer cells, and the challenge has always been "how can we ONLY kill the cancer?" We've been burning cancer, cutting cancer out, and drugging cancer cells for decades or centuries depending on the method. What is changing is not the type of challenge, but the precision of our tools - and even then, it remains to be seen if we actually can get the precision while improving the lives of the patients.
What are you on about? May be 1 out of 100,000 users are using 5.5 Pro to make 10 "Long Documents" as defined in that tool EVERY day. What a silly thing to harp on.
Six 100,000 token Claude coding sessions use less energy than a dryer load, and less water than making one egg. If you are truly concerned about energy and water usage, AI is not even in the top 100 things you should be concerned about in your daily life.