The computer from Star Trek sounds like it could entirely plausibly have been made with LLM components and a century of harness tweaking piled on.

Plausibly based on what? The computer from Star Trek wasn't real. It was Majel Barrett talking into a microphone. You can no more extrapolate any real world computer architecture from that than you can determine amphibian evolution from Kermit the Frog.

It's a thing you can talk to that does stuff for you. What other "architecture" do you need to know?

Fair enough. Your logic is unassailable. There is literally no difference between fiction and reality and no need to understand anything beyond "LLM talk therefore Star Trek real."

Literally not what the comment you were replying to was saying even remotely, but ok.

Right. Feel free to extrapolate a reading like "I think LLM tech and a century of tinkering could achieve computer performance similar to what it appears the entirely fictional, voiced by Majel Barrett, Star Trek computers has".

>Feel free to extrapolate a reading like "I think LLM tech and a century of tinkering could achieve computer performance similar to what it appears the entirely fictional, voiced by Majel Barrett, Star Trek computers has".

But that doesn't mean anything. "Similar to" is vague enough that it could include video game NPC dialogue.

From the codebases I have seen the "laws" are scattered between unit tests and lots of little tests and assertions in the actual code, plus cultural norms and "do it like this" patterns.

But a good start could be found in the unit tests.

The helmet portraits look goofy as hell.

I always wondered why in movies they did this. After thinking for 2.3 seconds, I concluded it's because so that movie watchers can see their faces.

Is there any other reason ?

I mean, they don't have lights inside the helmet that shines on your own face, right? That would mess with your ability to see.

The British Empire dismantling wasn't exactly peaceful, but it could have been much worse. Next to India, everything else becomes a rounding error.

It was mostly peaceful in itself. There was a lot of conflict that followed in the wake of it as borders and power structures were settled. Just in South Asia we had the partition of India, the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan, the Sri Lankan civil war, and various smaller separatist conflicts.

Not to mention the whole Middle East mess is due to the British on how they drew the borders when they left

Can be fairly accurate perception of time on a plane.

Time for the more biologically correct Mrs Mosquito?

Goodness Tokens

I remember telling people about it back then and it sounded crazy even to me. Yet..

But isn't it a bit different? Unaligned bombs didn't break out of their confines on their own. And "compute" is a bit harder to control than uranium and refinement tech.

>Unaligned bombs didn't break out of their confines on their own.

You really buy that ridiculous argument that "the AI broke out of its sandbox! We had no idea! It's dangerous I tell you, dangerous! Unless you make us the sole gatekeepers of this incredibly dangerous 'intelligence', everybody gonna die!"

Please.

Bring the CFAA[0] hammer down on these guys and watch how fast those "uncontrollable" LLMs get controlled. "Oh, gee! Prison? We can't control this stuff...but it'll never happen again!"

That whole thing was, and is, a bunch of hooey. Those running the LLMs are entirely responsible for them, there is no such thing as agency for algorithms. Full stop.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act