Assuming standard 7 3/4in height and 10in tread depth.

Also been a minute since I took physics 1, but IIRC, Work w = Force f × Displacement s in its simplest form.

We can plug in Force f = Mass m × Acceleration a such that w=(ma)s to see that the primary components of work in this scenario are mass, acceleration, and displacement, so velocity doesn't directly affect work.

I guess you could do some further derivation to get it in as a term via a=^d^/dtv(t), but you still end up having to calculate acceleration anyways.

Skipping steps is faster. The height and distance energy burn is roughly the same whether you walk up normally, backwards, skipping steps, or crawling (within reason). However your baseline metabolism is constant, so the faster method burns fewer calories.

Let’s say you were walking up stairs for 10 miles. That’s about 40,000 stairs. I would estimate that would take about 10 hours to do. But skipping steps you’d be done in maybe 6 hours. So in either case the stairs burn say 5000 calories. But going slower you have like 1000 calories of baseline metabolic burn, and skipping steps only 600. So skipping steps might be about 7% more efficient overall.

If the velocity is the same (rate of change) then I think work is the same (Physics was a long time ago).

That's from a basic physics perspective.

Biologically I would assume 2 steps requires more calories as we don't go slower, and I suspect the mechanics of motion don't work as simply as a basic physics experiment.

Think of it in terms of the size of each stair and the size of the person.

If each stair is > the size of my leg, each step is plenty of work. Doubling it engages more muscle groups. In this case obviously more energy.

If each stair is < the sole of my shoe, each step is barely any work. Doubling it is negligible, no new muscles are engaged, they just work slightly harder for double the gain.

So, the answer is both, and it depends on the size of the person and the size of the stairs.

The distance is the same, so that is the same work. But there is probably more effort in two steps at once just from how the muscles have to work. If your heart rate is higher even a little bit after getting to the top, then it's more.

Good question. It looks like the answer is no, exposure through regular shedding won't cause problems with someone who already has the virus, because they already have the antibodies to fight it. I wasn't able to find a really good source, this was the best one https://goaskalice.columbia.edu/answered-questions/if-my-partner-and-i-both-have-hsv-1-and-hsv-2-will-having-sex-cause-more

If she has it already, would a renewed contact with a large quantity of the virus provoke an outbreak?

I can sometimes feel the bacteria crawling over my skin. I then cut it of an boil it before sewing it back on. It itches but it's better then before.

Yes, but not in that way. They're far too small to feel individually.

Yes, people with HSV can feel a tingling feeling in the affected areas that accompanies a flare-up. No, you can't feel that in an initial infection.

If you're not on an antiviral, and you kiss at all, she probably has it already. Lots of people have oral herpes and don't even know it, because they have few or no symptoms. Viral shedding peaks with sores, but it happens all the time.

Absolutely not. Can you feel the bacteria? Well a virus is much much smaller than that. They are barely big enough to be "seen" with our current technology.

if she never had the herpes simplex 1, yea she should not kiss you. most adults have hsv1 , like 80-90%. also herpes takes a while to infect another person too, its not instant. i think what you are looking for is, the SO is having a psychosmatic effect.

No, they are way too small. Most people can't even feel small insects (ticks, mosquitoes) on their skin. You also can't feel dust particles. Viruses are orders of magnitudes smaller than those.

Most viruses get into your body by getting in contact with mucus membranes (in your mouth, nose) or open wounds, then they start taking over cells and reproduce. But you will only notice them once your immune system reacts to them, which causes most initial symptoms of virus infections.

That's super cool, I'll check that out tonight!

I do a bio carbon capture project using algae. narcimalgae on YouTube if you want to check it out.

Using primitive and slow methods still better than one-off projects with exotic materials and huge power demands.

The software is not there. These systems don't actually think, they just pick one of the most likely next words (actually tokens), given the words they already have, in a loop until the most likely next token is 'end my turn, and let the user type'.

They do this in a way that appears surprisingly "smart" because there's a ton of data backing the calculation of which tokens are most likely, and they are trained to make humans think they are giving a good answer. (An extremely different goal from "Give a good answer.")

But they still make a ton of mistakes, known as hallucinations. This is unavoidable because of the statistical nature of the process. And because they aren't actually thinking and can't "care" if they generate something false.

Is current AI sentient as the Terminator?

No, it's not as capable by a long shot.

It's hard to try to come up with a single measurement of capability---I suspect that if we had a really good one, we'd know more than we do about intelligence. But one can't reasonably call the current crop general intelligences. You can't just feed them arbitrary problems and have them learn to solve them and get better at doing so over time, the way humans can. They have quite limited ability to learn subsequent to their training phase.

EDIT: My own take is that while an artificial general intelligence might incorporate an LLM in some way, it won't be just an LLM. Like, my guess would be that we need foundational changes to how the things work to get there.

LLMs can do some neat things, and I'm sure that people will figure out more clever applications. But I don't believe that it'll be what we have today or a minor tweak to it or throwing more hardware at it that'll get us to general intelligence. Going to take more time with researchers advancing the field.

The software is there. The problem is hardware. The best in the world is stuff like the Boston Dynamics quadrupeds. They're good but not great. We can't quite replicate fast, fine motor function, especially for grasp-but-not-crush hands. And stuff like that burns battery power far too quickly for what modern battery packs can provide.

You just haven't given humans enough time. Look these idiots are working on it now:

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/drones/autonomous-strike-drone-uses-nvidia-jetson-orin-nano-to-independently-pick-and-bomb-targets-swedish-startups-attack-drones-run-small-ai-model-require-no-human-input-and-zero-external-comms

No. The closest thing is essentially a hallucinating facial recognition bot with a mounted gun. Dangerous but ultimately directionless, as facial recognition technology still makes huge mistakes.

There would have been, but a warrior called Kyle Reese traveled back in time from the future, and informed Sarah Connor of the coming future, and she took that shit down

No, LLMs are not sentient and never will be. The narratives that the AI companies are pushing out are marketing stunts designed to get people talking about false concerns and provide an argument for them to lower their training costs since they are running out of capital to burn.

What's worse-- the very real threats of AI, or nonsense / BS posts like this, written by complete idiots?

in the broadest of strokes, no. Consumer level AI is more or less a toddler who has had far far too much information dumped into it. At best it's a competent "Yes man", and worst, it's actively detrimental to whatever people are attempting to do with it.

As far as I can reason, in order for an AI to get to those levels of intelligence, it needs a few things it currently lacks entirely.

• Proper information compartmentalization and connecting strings to get from one to another in contextually relevant ways

• A small cabal of other AIs to determine both the intent of the prompt it's being given, and that the response is appropriate and/or factual where needed.

• Some level of curiosity to seek out answers to prompts and use compartmentalizes those answers for future recall.

If an AI had these abilities, it would approach becoming a proper General AI that if given the proper resources could potentially achieve singularity.

Hey, truth matters even if it's unpleasant. I hope we do fix things as best we can.