The actual research says something far less clickworthy. Are Stanford's PR dribbles now created by LLMs ?
"Two parallel neural ectoderm progenitors contribute to the developing brain
Abstract
When and how different brain regions diversify from one another remains unresolved.
Does a common neural ectoderm progenitor generate the entire brain? Or do multiple neural ectoderm progenitors exist, each restricted to form specific brain regions?
Here our lineage tracing studies of mouse embryos support the latter model. Two parallel brain progenitors emerge simultaneously during gastrulation: anterior neural ectoderm (forebrain/midbrain progenitor) and posterior neural ectoderm (hindbrain progenitor). Differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into anterior or posterior neural ectoderm-like cells revealed these were lineage committed to forebrain/midbrain versus hindbrain fates, respectively. They harbored diverging chromatin landscapes foreshadowing future forebrain/midbrain versus hindbrain identities. We further differentiated human pluripotent stem cells into hindbrain rhombomere 5/6-specific motor neurons, which were hitherto difficult to generate in vitro.
Hence, we postulate the brain is a composite organ emanating from two lineage-restricted progenitors; these dual progenitors may be evolutionarily conserved across 550 million years from hemichordates to mammals."
I think it's very interesting news. We've known about the brain's separate parts, and separate functions for a while. It was always assumed our evolution of the brain was neatly, and tidily tucked away as somethat that branches off a singular thing. A single step from the pluripotent, 'infinitely renewable' stem cell into another single progenitor.
This suggested a sequence of events, causes and effects, that somehow our minds today can be evolved from a singular 'step' within growth. Only our brains seems have this requirement.
So this requirement, in and of itself, is interesting and newsworthy. For whatever purposes, it's 2 separate systems that many living organisms evolve in the same way. It's 2 steps, for some physical reason.
"Based on those reviews, I judged that exactly 1/3 of the
papers he reviewed contained an error, which I defined to mean an incorrect
statement in a proof or result that the author believed to be correct.
These
were what I thought to be serious errors, not easily corrected mistakes. "
Talk about living in a bubble. Nike is an ultraglobal brand. The people who A. saw those ads and B. considered them negatively represent maybe 0.5% of global revenue. If even that. They sure weren't running "body-positive woman" ads in Tokyo and Zagreb.
It's time you get out there and meet some people from different backgrounds rather than something filtered down to like-minded people, and hopefully realize that your frame of reference is very limited.
They did run some painfully out-of-touch adverts in Central-Europe, possibly in Zagreb also... In Hungary it was pretty much a talking point at a time to boycott them, and competition was there. Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
> Hoka became pretty popular and common without any advertisements.
By "advertisements", I am sure you mean traditional adverts like TV, print media, and billboards. They were blowing up on social media thanks to paid influencers.
I am laughing reading this "double text". Chef's kiss. I had to re-read your original post a couple of times, then I could see it: "You are right...". Do you remember about six months ago when LLMs were still mostly shit and you needed to argue with them? They would insist that something was true, but in the same chat session they said it was false earlier? It was a daily occurrence for me six months and before. So infuriating!
Staggeringly low for a frontier model.
reply