You've reduced this discussion to meta-debate (again, it seems) and it's stifling productive conversation.

I don't understand what compels you to continue down this line of thought when its obvious flaws have been so clearly elaborated by other commenters.

I think you are more than capable of understanding what compels them, it's just not a very fun conclusion and one you'd rather not draw.

The internet is too connected and communication too instantaneous for Polymarket to be anything but a system to be gamed by those with money and influence.

Bet appears on Polymarket? You have the ability to direct people and resources to enact the under? Congrats you're rich!

Rich might be overstatement, but WNBA dildo stir show that people are ok with risking jail time over relatively low amounts of money.

Rich people continually attempting to accrue even more money is not exactly an unheard-of phenomenon

What happens to rich people when they get more money, do you think they just stop further attempts at acquiring more?

Sometimes they go on a ketamine binge shrugs

Occasionally they make historically bad bets and blow up their fortunes, and it gets eaten up it all the smaller sharks circling behind them. It used to be most billionaires only lasted (as billionaires) for 3-7 years before collapsing.

The current stock market insane binge has changed that a bit.

Yeah, they historically don't like to keep increasing their wealth, Elon musk going from 350bn to nearly 800bn in like 2 years is definitely not an example of that.

For what percent of trial participants did the interface function well enough for normal function?

Did you find any evidence, even anecdotal, about alleviation of phantom limb symptoms? I imagine it would be complete and instantaneous but I'm not an amputee with any experience.

Human abstract language, particularly the English language, is a pretty low-fidelity way to represent reality and in countless instances it can fail to represent the system to any useful or actionable degree.

Interfaces are hard, abstraction is hard. Computer science has been working on making these concerns easier to reason about, and the industry has put a lot of time and effort into building heuristics (software / dev mgmt / etc frameworks) to make achieving an appropriate abstraction (qua ontology) feasible to implement without a philosophy degree. We, like biological systems, have settled on certain useful abstraction layers (OOP, microservice arch, TDD, etc.) that have broad appeal for balancing ease of use with productivity.

So it should be with any generative system, particularly any that are tasked with being productive toward tangible goals. Often the right interface with the problem domain is not natural language. Constraining the "information channels" (concepts/entities and the related semantics, in the language of ontology) to the best of your ability to align with the inherent degrees of freedom, disambiguated as best as possible into orthogonal dimensions (leaning too hard on the geometric analogy now). For generating code, that means interacting with tokens on ASTs, not 1D sequences of tokens. For comprehending 3D scenes, a crude text translation from an inherently 2D viewpoint will not have physics, even folk physics, much in mind except by what it can infer from the dataset. For storing, recalling, and reciting facts per se, the architecture shall not permit generating text from nonverifiable sources of information such as those vector clouds we find between the layers of any NN.

These considerations early in the project massively reduce the resource requirements for training at the expense of SME time and wages to build a system that constrains where there are constraints and learns where there are variables.

You seem to be openly contradicting your company's PR and language. Your description very clearly describes the "AI" as a tool to translate relatively informal specifications into formal proof logic, but does not itself do the proving.

How do we know microphones on different devices are calibrated to record the same power readings? Do you have court-ready documents to show this?

I've searched but failed to find anything that works as a standard fiducial-type sound. e.g. With a recording of the sound produced by the fiducial from a set distance (and knowing temperature, pressure, humidity), you could calibrate/adjust recordings.

That is the crux you always need a calibrated sound to calibrate the mic. Best I think this app could hope to do is establish a relative reading. perhaps it could play a set of repeatable tones on the device(assuming being executed from a device that does not have external speakers that can be adjusted/ validate that sound was played from phone speaker and not headphone jack to a dac?) and record those then could replay sounds later to a calibrated device to establish reference. or start recording with some other regular repeatable sound like a vacuum cleaner with video showing how it was positioned for recording.

I don't think you can really do that reliably either. Arbitrary consumer device microphones do not have flat frequency response

I've added a calibration feature, hoping it will improve and help.

Please consult with a lawyer, these kinds of "baby's first foray into legal matters" projects can go wrong in silly ways. That is, if you're serious about this being for the purposes of civil suits, etc.

Poe's law in action.

This is the guy famous for having and being proud of his brain worm.

Yeah but I’ve seen a documentary, Futurama I think it was called, that showed the cognitive benefits of having worms.

That’s what he’s famous for, huh? Nobody knew who he was until he burst onto the national stage because of his brain worm. And please show a source that he was “proud” of the affliction.

Yes that's what he's famous for. That and being so desperate to find out who hired Sirhan to kill his father.

If he was famous to you before the Trump admin, that's because you're an anti-vaxxer.

Wouldn't it be more likely that it's calories, not meat per se, that is the main proxy for measuring our health decline?

There is a lot of research that shows the type of calorie you consume determines to some extent the next calorie you want to consume. You are more likely to be "sated" (i.e. not want to eat more calories), if you eat protein than you are ultra-processed carbohydrates, low calorie soda will leave your body yearning sugar, and so on.

When you couple this with the motivations of industrial food companies (some of whom are now owned by tobacco companies), and the research they do into the neuroscience effects of flavour, texture, even packaging of food, you'll start to spot that a push to "Real Food", and for that food to be less processed and more inclined towards protein, is more likely to result in overall calorie reduction.

One of the things that isn't cutting through on this program is saying "eat protein" is assumed to mean "eat meat", which some assume means you can eat burgers. Nope. Healthy protein is not red meat that has been fried - that's going to take a bit more education, I expect.

You're counting wheel revolutions, not miles travelled. Not an accurate proxy measurement unless you can verify the wheels are on the road for the entire duration.