I think it was meant like not (A has nukes and B has nukes) rather than (not A has nukes) and (not B has nukes). Strange wording, I felt the same way too.
That's what they meant: that's what war looks like when both parties don't have nukes. It's usually the defending party which benefits from nukes the most; and both parties having nukes makes every war a very dangerous affair (if it goes unchecked, as opposed to limited like India-Pakistan).
Only if that was a singular system, however, it is not. [0]
For example... The nerve cells in your gut may speak to the brain, and interact with it in complex ways we are only just beginning to understand, but they are separate systems that both have control over the nervous system, and other systems. [1]
General Intelligence, the psychological theory, and General Modelling, whilst sharing words, share little else.
> Do you have any proof whatsoever that non-programmers are using LLMs to write small bespoke apps for them successfully?
I’m radiologist, I’ve been paying for software that sped up my reporting like 200 usd per month. I’ve remade all the functionality I need in one evening with cursor and added some things that I’ve found missing from the original software.
> I haven't read the underlying paper so maybe they addressed this, but: couldn't this just be because sedentary/unfit people tend to drive everywhere?
It could be and that's the point - the exact causal effect of fitness might be overstated because some mortality reduction might have stem from - for example - driving less.
reply