djinnisequoia t1_j9f05qm wrote

I often wonder about whether an analogue to an endocrine system (the seat of emotion) could be simulated for an AI. I wonder about whether emotion is entirely dependent on these neurochemicals, or whether sentiment might arise in some fashion independently of chemical precursors. I'm not so much thinking about the obvious feelings like love or anger; but more things like wistfulness, or that nameless feeling you get watching the rain.


djinnisequoia t1_j0frvjg wrote

I really did read this paper, but I'm still having trouble identifying the incentive for purchasers of these spurious articles. It appears that some people are buying authorship slots -- why would they want to do that? Simply to have been published? Why would others want to buy papers of questionable provenance? I understand that actually conducting research can be prohibitively expensive; but what problem are the fake papers solving for the buyers?


djinnisequoia t1_izd9nfp wrote

Now watch him be, like, the best mayor ever and start a trend of electing very young people to office. That would rock so much! If it happened in enough places, we might actually get honest sincere politicians again.

I hope some smart person opens a grocery store there for them soon, and has a long and happy career selling decent stuff at fair prices.


djinnisequoia t1_iy5s99k wrote

This is a wonderful, accessible explanation. Thank you. I have a couple of questions, kind of remedial ones.

You say that gluons carry color charge between quarks, and they must constantly be exchanged to conserve color charge. Does that mean that quarks with two different charges would ordinarily cancel (leaving nothing presumably? or leaving each with a neutral charge?) but are exchanging gluons to shift their own color charge fast enough to avoid cancelling but then must immediately shift back again? In other words, what happens to a quark when a gluon is received from another?

Second, the virtual particles that particles emit to repel each other -- do they cost any energy for a particle to create/destroy them? Can a particle just do that indefinitely?


djinnisequoia t1_iu9x53o wrote

Oh, this is so good! The subjects in the painting look so relaxed and natural as to be completely believable. And with the background, you've captured beautifully a certain kind of look that a lot of my favorite paintings of landscapes from the early 1900s had. Trees that look like eucalyptus or cypress and they have an otherworldly, kind of languid look.

I have tried to do trees like that and have only succeeded once. Anyway, great work!