NervousRing

7 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by NervousRing 1y ago

   There are a lot of things in the article that I find a bit wishy-washy. > It’s a signpost for a broader trend—one that treats friction as failure, learning as delivery, and formation as a plug-in. I think building something provides a lo
2. 2.▲
   by NervousRing 1y ago

   I've heard of q-plasma and q-total. What is q-science?
3. 3.▲
   by NervousRing 2y ago

   Hey! Thanks a lot for the detailed review. So for now, this seems to be a better introductory text?
4. 4.▲
   by NervousRing 2y ago

   I don't think that qualifies as "full" self driving.
5. 5.▲
   by NervousRing 2y ago

   No one has demonstrated stable plasma operations for any lengths of time and they are claiming to not just get Q-plasma > 1 but Q-total > 1 by 2030? This is more optimistic than Full Self Driving by 2016
6. 6.▲
   by NervousRing 2y ago

   1. We don't have a perfect understanding of plasma dynamics and how they'll react to different conditions. Predicting plasma instabilities before they mess with your reactor remains a big challenge for our computation capabilities
7. 7.▲
   by NervousRing 2y ago

   I think it understands the context better and it was possibly fine tuned better. I have been using GPT since 3 and while the replies have obviously gotten more accurate, it still makes weird assumptions at times, whereas Claude seems to &