

The line is complicated and blurry and changes for each person even. The only semi-consistent rule I can find, is that as soon as a company is involved and it becomes a “product”, it seems to get bad.
That was my conclusion as well. I am not against science, I love science and industrial manufacturing, I was even willing to drink soylents! But even if you wave away the constantly changing food science health recommendations as normal churn of ever-improving scientific understanding, the interests of industrial food manufacturers are never aligned with my own. “We replaced butter with palm oil in our recipe because it is cheaper!” - well ok, good for you - “…AND it is also healthier for you! ;)” - I don’t believe it! I’ll check in back in another 50 years to see all the metastudies of the metastudies of palm oil consumption studies, but in the meantime the only rule of thumb that has survived every dietary recommendation change is to stick to whole foods.



The way I see it is they are doing inference, not transfiring bank account balances. I’d be curious to see some actual experimental data, but I’d expect LLMs to skip past bit flips same way you shrug and move on from spelling errors. At worst you can do your critical calculation in triplicate on your 6nm nodes (with redo upon dissensus) and reduce your bit error from 4/year (or 4000/year or whatever have you in orbit) to (4/year)^3