Kids definitely do this. They fill in blanks/context with assumptions, resulting in all sorts of silly responses, for topics of sparse knowledge/certainty. They're not lying, because they think it's true. Sometimes the gap filling is wrong, but usually downright brilliant, within the context of their knowledge.
I replied within the context provided rather than all possible contexts. Would you also like to bring up the interpolation and extrapolation seen during problem solving in the cuddle fish, since it's related?
I would claim the public can easily handle something like this, but the media wouldn't be able to resist.
I could easily see a hit piece making its rounds on left leaning media about the AI that re-animates the problematic ideas of the past. "Just look at what it said to my child, "<insert incredibly racist quote coerced out of the LLM here>"!" Rolling stones would probably have a front page piece on it, titled "AI resurrecting racism and misogyny". There would easily be enough there to attract death threats to the developers, if it made its rounds on twitter.
"Platforming ideas" would be the issue that people would have.
Could there be a difference in the social reward centers of the brain, based on gender, possibly from the biological necessities of having children? We know reward centers are not the same, between the sexes, since heterosexual attraction is the norm (and why gay conversion therapy can't work). Some brain structure and function is hard coded.
Could these hormone influenced reward centers differ in social rewards, or for human interaction? Computers are not human. Maybe [1], but don't expect much research proving it one way or the other.
How would that explain the very basic fact that most programmers were women in the early days of computing? It can't. The most important factors deciding which gender is most represented in programming are sociological.
You need to look at the history of it all. There wasn't the freedom back then, that we have now, where women could choose their profession based on personal interest. Back then programmers were women. It wasn't considered a man's job [1].
When you look at the history of it all, it clearly shows that men have always been misogynistic bigots oppressing and driving women out of educational opportunities and professional careers, and they still all, even more so today than ten years ago, due to the rise of GamerGate, MAGA and Project 2025.
I have trouble comprehending how a collision would happen, in 3d space, even with a "14000 starlink satellites" (16k square miles each, on average), with something like 100ft being enough for them to pass over each other.
I thought most of the maneuvers were to maintain large margins of safety, not prevent definite collisions.
Because the orbits largely aren't 3D. These constellations orbit at the same altitude. Altitude changes are very expensive because you can't just go "up", you have to go "forward" faster. "Down" means slowing your orbit.
Two objects at different altitudes cannot maintain the same speed and relative positions. A higher orbit necessarily must have a higher velocity than a lower orbit. If you try to distribute your constellation across multiple orbital altitudes they'll slowly drift out of sync without constant thrust.
So these constellations trace out different and intersecting paths across the surface of the same sphere, not a 3D shell around that sphere.
The problem is that the satellites are moving very fast and there are a lot of them. The mean free path may be very long, but if the satellite is moving very quickly it will cover that distance fairly often. This means that they will have to actively avoid collisions fairly often.
this is absolutely hilarious.
reply