It’s more of a testament to a potential beneficial side effect of an already widely used drug for something entirely different.
I (in America) actually exercise 5-6 days a week with regular sauna use afterwards averaging about 2-2.5 hours per total session (20 minutes from sauna). I coincidentally even happen to take long hot baths frequently (3-4 times a week for an hour) as a form of stress relief, relaxation, and it further helps with muscle recovery.
Absolutely none of that helps me to a notable degree with what the specific pill in question does which I also use regularly. In addition, viagra adds an additional say 4 hours per day per pill to my normal weekly routine of increased blood flow that may help reduce risk of dementia when I’m older. That’s a big win in my book if it’s true as it’s something I already do and is additive.
Have done regular exercise to improve my Long COVID state for 6 months now. It has helped, but it has its limits too. If I overdo it, I get worse, but I can't always tell until later. And other health issues are limiting what forms of exercise I can do.
Hard problems rarely have one simple solution, or they wouldn't be hard, would they?
What’s wrong with being excited and working hard towards something? Hoping for nearly anyone’s demoralization is not good. I wish you a spirit of adventure that takes you many exciting places!
Also, what specific safety problems do you think need to be solved?
There’s a sudden market for a new flavor of bullshit, and brand-new bullshit providers have sprung up to fill the vacuum. But all the exec-webinar/thought-leader/hypetrain/pr stuff is a sideshow from people building actual value.
> What’s wrong with being excited and working hard towards something?
Ahh, the old "how can cryptocurrency be harmful if people like buying it?" argument.
There are many realistic and amenable goals in life, like mapping the human genome or writing an Open Source microkernel. Declaring that you intend to surpass human intelligence via a statistical text generator is not one of those things. It does not have precedent, it does not have feasibility studies, it does not seemingly indicate in any way shape or form that it is possible. Nobody can even spell-out the intermediate steps to get us to AGI; every single "novel" solution involves scaling up our current, broken, concepts. It's ELIZA versus the Lisp pundits all over again.
Excitement and hard work go a long ways, but you won't know which way until you apply a little logic. The current "AGI" trend is practically non-existent outside the venture-capital sphere and OpenAI employees, both of whom would be bullish on AGI anyways since it's good for business. Once you discard the biased opinions, you're left with legitimately confused investors and nonsense opinions propagated by conspiracy theorists. Much like crypto, the concept of "AGI" is being used to confuse and exploit people who misunderstand technology and finance.
> Also, what specific safety problems do you think need to be solved?
I think you misread their comment. They said "safely incorporated", which is not a specific safety problem for AI but a holistic consideration that stops your product from sucking. Your computer vision model could be statistically perfect, but absolutely useless for self-driving tasks and multimodal robotic agents. It's not taste that separates these good implementations from the bad ones, it's logic. You have to be considerate when implementing AI in traditional systems, because inherently AI can be wrong and you must have a failure-mode for those situations.
Many people reject this idea, because it precludes the idea that someone could sell a cure-all to today's AI ills. But real AI safety cannot be baked-in to a model. It only exists when genuinely thoughtful humans anticipate every single fail-state; if that sounds like hard work, it's because it is. And nobody, nobody, sells it as "AGI".
Interesting find! Lots of information about the winding and the materials used. I wish there was more information about the epoxy used to adhere the titanium endcaps to the hull.
I also wonder what changed between the Cyclops 2 and the Titan.
I believe it’s both really. My understanding is the end caps are bolted to a titanium flange, not the carbon fibre hull directly. The titanium flange the caps are bolted to is epoxied to the hull.
Yea, you generally try to avoid drilling holes or even casting threaded bosses into carbon or other composites, especially this extreme pressure rig, because it really reduces the strength versus an strong adhesive that evenly applies pressure without breaking/disrupting the composite material.
They use some sort of glue to seal the titanium rings to the CF hull, then the Titanium hemisphere end caps are bolted to the rings. Here’s their own YT vid showing the construction process: https://youtu.be/WK99kBS1AfE
I suppose the article meant cap itself was a carbon fiber/epoxy build, implying nothing about the connection?
On a separate note, although the submarine failed catastrophically, that doesn't mean every decision it took was wrong. I wonder if the bolts actually make sense under high water pressure.
I assume that just the name. Cyclops was a monster that lost his one eye in battle. The submarine had one window and the name suggests that window being damaged at some point. Titan suggests a more positive and strong image without suggesting the bad parts.
In any case the submarine couldn't avoid the cyclops destiny and cyclopsioned entirely.
