I wouldn’t think that your advertising of the podcast is so successful as to make people listen to it.

But somehow you seem to be leaking the idea that reasoning models are something different than autoregressive LLMs. Yes, they do have different fine-tuning and system prompts, but little beyond that. Subbarao Kambhampati has worked a lot on this, e.g. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15339 or https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15125

There’s also the dynamics that burning fuel makes the aircraft lighter, whereas consuming electricity does not impact battery weight.

Based on my experience with the Yaris (which is y personal attempt to remake the Taxi 2 movie), take-off would need both types of engines.

In your comment I read the assumption that take off would be in hybrid mode. Not sure it’s a given.

I don’t see this disputed so much as I see the need for “all science requires methodology”. I find it ridiculous that research in technical areas like LLMs has given up on any pretence of reproducibility.

That’s a very simplistic interpretation. A popular book that counters it is https://bookwyrm.social/book/29025/s/thinking-fast-and-slow

I personally have huge doubts about the methodological merits of phenomenology. Consider this as a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(psychology)

Marketing does not care about the validity of its claims.

Here is the explanation from the article that contradicts its title:

Ozone forms when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released by some vegetation, vehicles and chemical industries react with nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are emitted mostly by traffic and industry. A series of reactions between these compounds in the presence of sunlight causes ozone to form. Breathing in ozone can inflame or damage the airways, causing breathing difficulties, particularly in people with asthma or lung disease.