So many unanswered questions from this. Right after the narrative was that some form of AI was used to determine the targets during the initial campaign. Presumably they captured a lot of location data from IRGC and other Govt leaders to find places where they cluster at specific times and places. There are very few schools the Iranian elite would send their kids to and so there was heavy concentration at this specific place and time. They had so many targets in the opening days that maybe they only used certain graphing algorithims and took the ones with the highest centrality scores and the most common repeating place and times for the targets they had in mind. But then you have to wonder if some human somewhere didn't cross reference this supposed AI output to determine what specifically they were about to bomb.

That question should be answered. Did human review of this target reveal it was a school? If so, did someone in the Govt approve the strike knowing this?

Was it too tempting of a target given who was likely in the same place at the same time (dropping off or picking up their kids from school) ? Did they use phone location data and since parents buy phones for their kids, it looked like a lot of IRGC and other state officials were at that location, when infact it was their children and teachers?

Even more disturbing, if they knew it was a school and still chose to strike, was the intent to wipe out the next generation of Iranian leadership?

Just so many unanswered questions with no good answers.

Of course it was a war crime.

If the LLM is writing the SQL it might as well build the query plan too.

> To our temporary relief and encouragement, it has not managed to fully resolve even one ...

Why would that be encouraging if the purpose of their chosen profession is to advance physics? This is sort of like mathematics being solved by AI with human researchers complaining that they are losing potential awards. It's an entirely self serving way to be.

This is the same social process as to why science tends to progress one funeral at a time.

So many people have their financial and self worth tied to their expertise in phlogiston theory that the truth is second to advancing the field of phlogiston theory.

From that perspective it is hard to think of something worse than a machine that disproves phlogiston theory.

I always thought the smartest thing to do since countries chose to accept fiat currency in exchange for oil was to create as many patroleum reserves as possible and print as much money to buy as much oil to store for later use as they would sell.

It was a great plan, but all it took to foil it was one orange man in the Epstein files.

All the prompt engineers clogging up San Francisco for dreamforce need to get back to the office.

It's advantageous in rules-based systems, but many aspects of life, particularly interpersonal, are not rules-based.

Systems thinking pays well, which is advantageous, but this might be short lived, now that LLMs can mediate interfacing with rules-based systems.

Its so manipulative for IPO reasons too. The fact is that all of these systems are still just stastically predicting the next token. Spending trillions on data centers and more training data hasnt changed the fundamental reality that it is still just predicting the next token.

That is not worth the investments being made.

It's all fracked up

> 68% of the physicists surveyed said the Big Bang does not necessarily represent the beginning of time

Kind of an interesting rabbit hole with this one...

The current best guess it that the universe "started" a few [milli?]seconds before the Big Bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe Names are hard.