OED:

1. totally or partially resistant to a particular infectious disease or pathogen.
2. protected or exempt, especially from an obligation or the effects of something.

Merriam Webster

1. : not susceptible or responsive

   especially: having a high degree of resistance to a disease

2. a: produced by, involved in, or concerned with immunity or an immune response

   b: having or producing antibodies or lymphocytes capable of reacting with a specific antigen

3. a: marked by protection

   b: free, exempt

So unless you pretend that MW’s 2b sense is the only valid one, the immunity is immunity.

If you have a sample of HIV at 37°C in blood, but with all the immune cells removed, it’ll still all become inert after around a week simply due to chemical reactions with other components of blood etc… It’s pretty comparable to a population of animals - if you take away their ability to reproduce, they’ll die of old age when left for long enough even if you’re not actively killing them.

Edit: fat-fingered the save button while previewing the formatting

• this is a shitpost community, not a biotech publication, so immune here means the dictionary definition, not any domain-specific technical jargon, otherwise people can’t make shitposts about diplomatic immunity
• lacking the receptor that HIV uses to hijack the regular immune response in order to reproduce means the regular immune response destroys it
• even in a normal person, after exposure, a lot of HIV gets destroyed by other parts of the immune system, often enough to eliminate it before an infection gains a foothold. Once an infection takes hold, it outbreeds the immune response as it’s the part best equipped to deal with a large viral load that it interferes with.
• if you’ve got the virus in your body, but due to the lack of the receptor, it can’t reproduce, then it doesn’t remain viable for very long as each viron accumulates damage over time, and ceases to function once it’s too badly damaged. People carrying a disease have enough viral reproduction going on to balance out the virus being destroyed.

There’s a pretty good reason to think it’s not going to improve much. The size of models and amount of compute and training data required to create them is increasing much faster than their performance is increasing, and they’re already putting serious strain on the world’s ability to build and power computers, and the world’s ability to get human-written text into training sets (hence why so many sites are having to deploy things like Anubis to keep themselves functioning). The levers AI companies have access to are already pulled as far as they can go, and so the slowing of improvement can only increase, and the returns can only diminish faster.

Even if you ignore that there’s an entirely valid sense of the word immune that has nothing do do with biology (i.e. the one in phrases like diplomatic immunity), my original comment is entirely consistent with the dictionary definition of the biological sense of the word. There are probably sub-fields of biology where immunity is used as jargon for something much more specific than the dictionary definition, but this is lemmyshitpost, not a peer-reviewed domain-specific publication.

If LLMs aren’t going to reach a point where they outperform a junior developer who needs too much micromanaging to be a net gain to productivity, then AI’s not going to be a net gain to productivity, and the only productive way to use it is to fight its adoption, much like the only way to productively use keyboards that had a bunch of the letters missing would be to refuse to use them. It’s not worth worrying about obsolescence until such a time as there’s some evidence that they’re likely to be better, just like how it wasn’t worth worrying about obsolescence yet when neural nets were being worked on in the 80s.

When a normal person is exposed to HIV, it reproduces inside of them, so can then go on to expose more people, and if there’s enough of it, infect them in turn (if there’s a smaller amount, their immune system will normally be able to clean it up before it gets enough of a foothold). If someone’s lacking the receptor, then no matter how much they were exposed to, their immune system will eventually manage to remove it all without becoming infected because it can’t reproduce. If they had a ludicrously large viral load, then there’s a possibility that it could be passed on before it was destroyed, but most of the ways people get exposed to HIV aren’t enough to infect someone who’s vulnerable, let alone infect someone else via secondary exposure if there’s not been time for the infection to grow.

Usually, having to wrangle a junior developer takes a senior more time than doing the junior’s job themselves. The problem grows the more juniors they’re responsible for, so having LLMs stimulate a fleet of junior developers will be a massive time sink and not faster than doing everything themselves. With real juniors, though, this can still be worthwhile, as eventually they’ll learn, and then require much less supervision and become a net positive. LLMs do not learn once they’re deployed, though, so the only way they get better is if a cleverer model is created that can stimulate a mid-level developer, and so far, the diminishing returns of progressively larger and larger models makes it seem pretty likely that something based on LLMs won’t be enough.

The vast majority of NATO that isn’t the US is covered by the EU’s Mutual Defence Clause, so this kind of already exists. It sucks for the NATO members that aren’t in the EU, though, e.g. Greenland.

People without the receptor that HIV targets are immune to HIV because of that, like how a rock is immune to verbal abuse or double foot amputees are immune to ingrown toenails. The immune system being able to kill something isn’t the only way things can be immune to other things.

Enzymes are specific to a particular molecule, or class of molecules with a particular pattern. A PEI buildplate is not getting eaten by the proteases in a dishwasher tablet. The reasons you’re not supposed to rinse things before putting them in the dishwasher are:

• most dishwashers have sensors to detect how much material is ending up in the water, and if things have been rinsed, it can mislead them into thinking the load is lighter than it really is.
• dishwashers replace some of the dirty water part way through the load, and the enzymes are more soluble than the dirt, so if there’s not much food residue for them to stick to, they can end up getting rinsed away part way through the cycle.
• it uses water and your time to rinse the dishes first, which is a waste if it doesn’t make them end up any cleaner.

That tests the AIDS immunity, but not whether there are off-target edits. IIRC, the mothers were all HIV-positive, so the children are all pretty likely to be exposed anyway, which was part of how he justified the experiment to himself.

If he got incredibly lucky, they’re immune to AIDS. It’s much more likely that they’re not and will develop symptoms of new and exciting genetic disorders never seen before.

The biggest problem was that the technique used is really unreliable, so you’d expect off-target edits to be more common than on-target ones for a human-sized genome. For bacteria, you can get around it by letting the modified bacteria reproduce for a few generations, then testing most of them. If they’re all good, then it worked, and if any aren’t, you need to make a new batch. Testing DNA destroys the cells you’re testing, so if you test enough cells in a human embryo to be sure that the edits worked, it dies. You can’t just start when the embryo is a single cell to ensure that the whole thing’s been edited in the same way as you need to test something pre-edit to be able to detect off-target edits.

I think it was pretty reasonable of them to worry - lots of people who don’t like spending unnecessary money also don’t like spending not-obviously-necessary money on safety equipment, and there’s plenty of material on the internet that would imply resin printing is completely safe as long as you don’t drink the stuff. Resin printing with woefully inadequate ventilation/PPE is really common, so it’s a pretty safe bet that anyone asking questions is probably also doing something unsafe without realising it, especially as resin not liking the cold is something a lot of people learn about fairly early on (unless they live somewhere where it never gets below 20°C).

Each colour’s a different piece of plastic, instead of being one piece with paint on, so the colouring has to be simplified, and the beak is low-hanging fruit as it’s obviously a beak even if it’s not as colourful as it should be. The shapes seem to be relatively detailed, though, and the beak shape is closer to that of a puffin than any penguin I can think of.

I think that might possibly be a puffin, not a penguin.

To be fair, if I had all that money, I’d probably just pay someone to figure out how to make it do the most good, and continue spending at least some of my time shitposting. It’s okay to have hobbies, but it’s bad to hoard the money or invest it in evil.

It’s pretty easy to put something on the box like this can make your phone buzz if you forget to brush your teeth, and people who worry they’re sometimes forgetting to brush your teeth will see that as an advantage without necessarily realising that they need to give the manufacturer their email and the right to associate it with their brushing telemetry.

There are a far fewer pedestrians and walls and lamp posts and motorcycles in the air than on the ground, though, so there’s a lot more margin to be awful without endangering anyone other than your own family.

I didn’t say that they did, just that switching to UE5 can be a mixed bag rather than always unambiguously better. My original comment was pretty explicit about it not being applicable to CDPR.

If you’re specifically working on a game that stock UE5 can’t do, e.g. you need to make the kind of far-reaching changes that Valve had to make to Source to make Portal possible, you end up with most of those problems even if you’re doing it by modifying UE5 rather than modifying your in-house engine. You’re still ending up with a custom engine at the end of the process and still need to make tooling for it and onboard everyone, even if it ends up fairly similar to stock UE5 due to being modified UE5. It doesn’t necessarily work out any more scalable or sustainable than modifying an in-house engine once you’re making this kind of change. The outcome ends up being that games that can’t be made in close-to-stock UE5 just don’t end up getting made.