vrighter

The original's smile communicates much more stuff than the eyes on the face that looks like it's completely bored.

Trying to "communicate with her eyes" is exactly what makes the poster bad.

To whom it may concern,

MURDER! MURDER! MURDER!

Yours truly, Maurice Moss

no, it wouldn't. Because the car is not filled with aerosolized explodey-gas, but just flammable liquid contained in a robust tank. it is not explosive. It can catch fire, but not simply from impact. You'd need a hole in the tank lower than the current fuel level and an external ignition source. Even if you shoot the gas tank directly, it will not explode. It is physically impossible for it to explode.

Puncture one of an electric car's cells, and it sets off a chain reaction. The whole car very quickly goes up in flames.

extensions are not supported in gnome. gnome devs do not care in the slightest if they break them whenever.

so.... a stochastic parrot?

they aren't. The only difference is that the state transition table is so unimaginably gargantuan thit we can only generate an approximation of a tiny slice of it, instead of it being literally a table

a > 30000 vehicle that won't be available for a decade

matrix multiplications. lots and lots of matrix multiplications. What gpus are good at already

the exact same intended use case, in fact

not really. A lot of techniques have been known for decades. What we didn't have back then was insane compute power.

and there's the turing award for computer science.

and physicists use tools from math, so fields medals should be awarded to physicists.

yeah, so that means that it's not incremental improvement on what we have that we need. That will get us nowhere. We need a (as yet unknown) completely different approach. Which is the opposite of incremental improvement.