Glacevent

These guys have great videos if you have the time.

My all time favorite animal. The red-bearded vulture.

The bearded vulture, or lammergeier, lives on a steady diet of bones (more specifically the marrow) and dyes its own feathers blood red.

Bearded vultures come in various shades, from pure white to orange-red. Soils stained with iron oxide give the birds their fiery appearance. Lammergeiers apply the dirt with their claws and then preen for about an hour to ensure a bright orange/red glow. They are also attracted to other red things, like leaves and red wood. Captive birds also partake in this behavior, which suggests the activity is instinctual, not learned.

The soil doesn’t have any practical purposes; it certainly doesn’t make for good camouflage (though the birds have no natural predators anyway). Scientists have noticed that the birds’ age and size are directly correlated to the intensity of color. It is theorized that the hue is a status symbol. More soiled feathers indicates that the lammergeier had the time and resources to find an adequate place to bathe; the brightest-colored vultures should have the most territory and knowledge of their surroundings. Interestingly, these baths are done in secret, so most of the information gathered has been through spying on captive birds.

Bearded Vultures are most commonly monogamous, and breed once a year. Sometimes, especially in certain areas of Spain and France, bachelor lammergeiers will join a pre-existing couple to create a polyandrous trio. Females accept secondary mates because it increases the chances of producing offspring and doubles her protection. The birds usually don’t lay more than three eggs, so they can use all the help they can get.

These giant birds can grow up to 4 feet tall. They have a wingspan between 7 and 9 feet and usually weigh around 10 to 15 pounds.

Fun fact: back in 2010 I wrote a game called Space Resistance, where the basic gameplay was that you had to match colors to numbers to avoid your ship getting destroyed by proton torpedoes.

1. What is the purpose of an AI writing a bibliography without the sources in hand? It just feels like a way for students to try to cheat? If you didn't use a source why would you cite it?

We're supposed to generate a list of sources in our field connected to a theoretical concept we might use in our conference paper. For example, fidelity and adaptation studies. We then have to check the accuracy and usefulness of the sources and write a reflection paper on the process of using AI, the ethics of it etc.

As a PhD student in AI (analytic not generative, like what you're describing), I've definitely seen ethical use of generative AI in research, but only for small blocks of code.

Since usual large language models have a lot of python in their training datasets, and one of the things they're trained for is answering programmation questions, they're quite decent at that. Though, of course ; You have to pose the problem the right way for the AI, which already requires some degree of know how ; You still have to check the code (and test it if needs be) ; you can't use it to generate the whole codebase for your experiment, since it can only generate a limited amount of tokens and has a limited understanding of distant relationships between pieces of code.

Also, I don't know about Copilot or recent versions of chatGPT, but I know that some version of chatGPT only relied on the trained network to give you an answer, and used no outside information. This means that they would not be able to suggest relevant papers more recent than the date at which the network was trained.

Also, since it's a general purpose LLM, there's no "strong" safeguard measure to ensure it's not hallucinating, like checking that a paper exists or that the information outputted by the network is factually correct.

(Might be relatively useful to have a second summary of an article, beside the abstract, to know if it's pertinent to your studies before reading it, though.)

1. What is the purpose of an AI writing a bibliography without the sources in hand? It just feels like a way for students to try to cheat? If you didn't use a source why would you cite it?

We're supposed to generate a list of sources in our field connected to a theoretical concept we might use in our conference paper. For example, fidelity and adaptation studies. We then have to check the accuracy and usefulness of the sources and write a reflection paper on the process of using AI, the ethics of it etc.

As a PhD student in AI (analytic not generative, like what you're describing), I've definitely seen ethical use of generative AI in research, but only for small blocks of code.

Since usual large language models have a lot of python in their training datasets, and one of the things they're trained for is answering programmation questions, they're quite decent at that. Though, of course ; You have to pose the problem the right way for the AI, which already requires some degree of know how ; You still have to check the code (and test it if needs be) ; you can't use it to generate the whole codebase for your experiment, since it can only generate a limited amount of tokens and has a limited understanding of distant relationships between pieces of code.

Also From Microsoft’s own FAQ: "Note that Recall does not perform content moderation. It will not hide information such as passwords or financial account numbers. 🤡

Go into the power shell

then paste in:

reg add HKCU\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsCopilot /v "TurnOffWindowsCopilot" /t REG_DWORD /f /d 1

like this

Then restart. Also here is how to turn off the awful search suggestions:

Hahaha it was something like that