In fact, I'll bet someone makes a bundle selling AI arbitration services that do just that. Got a beef with BigCo? What could be more fair than letting HAL settle the matter?
If I had the sense God gave a gerbil, I'd already have Claude writing up a patent application on this. (Edit, too late: https://www.adr.org/ai-arbitrator/ )
No, they don't really do that anymore, if you use the latest models with reasoning enabled.
Like almost everything else about LLMs, this unfortunate tendency has gotten a lot better recently, which you might not realize if you gave up after getting some lame answers or bogus glazing on the free ChatGPT page a couple of years ago.
Part of what you're paying for with the ADS1299 is simultaneous sampling, which you can get by without. You could use a single-channel 24-bit ADC and multiplex it yourself with generic analog switch ICs. That gives you a much larger array of part-selection options.
The ADS1299 also has a bunch of built in analog front end circuit specifically for biosensing. Though it looks like the could be used for a super cheap EEG, neat chip and in some ways, better than the ADS1299.
I don't understand this point of view at all. There's a symmetry that is going entirely unappreciated by most of the comments in the thread: just as I can give Claude X,000 words of text to use to describe the code I want it to write, I can also give it some existing code and ask for X,000 words of text explaining what it does. (Call it, oh, I don't know, a "spec," maybe.)
The explanation, in turn, can be fed back to recreate the functionality of the original code.
At that point, why care about the code at all? If it works, it works. If it doesn't, tell the model to fix it. You did ask for tests, right?
That is where we're indisputably headed. It's not quite a lossless loop yet, but those who say it won't or can't happen bear a heavy burden of proof.
Code is not spec. There is an implementation spectrum.
On one end, you have code that can perform only the behaviour explicitly declared in the spec, but has to be thrown away and rewritten for any new or updated spec.
On the other end, you have code that implements or anticipates a wide range of future possible specs including the given one.
The AI can operate on any point on this spectrum, but it's not very good at choosing. The more complex the software, the more such choices need to be made.
When the number of bad choices reaches a certain critical mass, even a skilled engineer becomes powerless to undo all the bad choices, and even a powerful model becomes unable to reduce it back to a coherent spec.
Some people are mindful about what they get and don't get from amazon and don't die from prosperity. ("you might use AI to increase your prosperity")
the rest of the world eats too much and dies of heart disease/diabetes. ("the rest of the world will flounder more and AI will do more stuff to them than for them")
That voltage from the crystal creates an electric field, which exerts a force on free charges in the air. (There's always some free charges floating around, like electrons and ions.) These charges accelerate and collide with air molecules, kicking loose more free electrons that also accelerate and collide, and so on, in an exponential chain reaction. We call this an electron avalanche. And guess what happens? Accelerating charges create a changing electric field—which, yup, creates a changing magnetic field, etc., and that disturbance radiates outward as an electromagnetic wave.
Huh? It has nothing to do with "free charges in the air." That's... kind of the whole idea behind EM theory.
That said, I've never heard of anyone building a detector out of balls of aluminum foil, so that's pretty cool. I'd classify it as a rectifying detector rather than a coherer, though, because nothing is physically moving. A real coherer had to be physically bumped or tapped between received signals.
reply