Because they had to make the headline sound exciting somehow. It's hard to present obvious facts as something really engaging without sensationalizing it

10% is really high, that's kinda the point they're making. There is a correlation. It can be used as a predictive tool. That's 20x higher than lifetime adult suicide attempts.

Not magical. One of the rules in this subreddit is to assume basic competence of the researchers. They have good reason to do this research.

You did not read the article

While it is totally gross, let's try to keep the comments relevant and not so low-effort or taste/opinion based

This is a "comment". It's basically an editorial, except not even from the editor.

You must not have spent much time in the comments section on YouTube. It's way worse than anything I've seen on Twitter. Although I haven't used Twitter since the recent changes, so idk how it is now.

That...is just not remotely true

(The second part)

That's a ridiculous argument to make in the 21st century

>earliest known

tbf, they acknowledged the possibility :-p

There's an ongoing Harvard study on this (IIRC).

https://www.themusiclab.org/quizzes/fc

Happy sounding music tends to be in major keys, which are much less dissonant (i.e., they are more resonant and innately pleasing to the ear). I don't know why that would be more pleasing to the ear—what evolutionary mechanism might have led to the phenomenon of music enjoyment?

https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abq3903

Here's the actual paper, because...Vice, seriously?

What's your source for how the researchers trained these models, specifically?

I would like to add a counterpoint: namely, that AI is not an amalgamation of what is familiar, because familiarity to humans is a result of a whole host of cognitive biases. An AI probably takes more factors/features into account than a human would if he were given the same task (to create a realistic face). But I don't know exactly how the model was trained, so it's all conjecture.

So do the artificial faces.

You can see the GAN faces they used at thispersondoesnotexist.com (unfortunately, you have to refresh each time to see a new one).

The real ones were taken from this dataset.

If solipsism is philosophically naïve, then I'd contend that this take is, too.

OP is not a native English speaker, most of his titles end up weird like that. Usually he writes "researches" but it looks like he figured out the difference :-)

The latter. This is a genetic mutation causing poor function.

This is a genetic trait, not the result of SSRIs. SSRIs might actually treat this for a large number of affected people.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase, "she told me she was on the pill!" ...but I can say that it has been more times than it should have ever been said. Hopefully we'll soon have preventive measures for both sexes.

The Schrödinger's cat thing is just some nonsense he said that science educators have adopted as a teaching method, God knows why. The entire point of the "thought experiment" was to make quantum mechanics seem ridiculous and incredible (in the literal sense of the word). It isn't a paradox at all. Quantum entanglement is not a paradox either; it just means something is going on that we don't understand yet.

Anyway, this study has nothing to do with "solving" either of those (quotation marks because I more mean "making the way the world works appear intuitive to humans, whose cognitive biases and other ridiculous habits of cognition are extraordinarily far from conducive to understanding reality").

Sorry, but why would you possibly think this was an appropriate comment for this subreddit?

Right, but isn't this compeltely ignoring the very obvious fact that the universe is physical and therefore anything in it is physical? Like this doesn't actually seem to be saying anything other than "things that exist exist in the same way that everything else that exists exists". It's also obvious that organizing things into a configuration that humans can use as reference (whether it be writing on paper, encoding on a disk, punching holes in cards, whatever) takes energy to do, and also due to entropy, takes energy to maintain because of quantum effects and degradation of matter into lower configurations of energy...

So given all that, I'm assuming I'm missing something, if this is indeed some kind of revolutionary idea. What am I missing? How is this not simply restating the laws of physics and framing it as some huge paradigmatic shift even though it's just (apparently) saying "the laws of physics haven't broken down yet"?

Mods, please ignore my report. On my first read, I missed the quote from the researchers about safety. Given the source, I was (perhaps understandably) suspicious of the enthusiasm.

Title does not reflect findings