BRN Discussion Ongoing

Rach2512 · Feb 22, 2024

Fullmoonfever said:
Just waiting for the bastards & their speeding tickets.

ASX - Well Brainchip, why is your SP moving like this? Anything you need to tell us?

BRN - Well ASX, please refer attached image. Oh....and by the way please do try to keep up.

View attachment 57496

Save the best till last. See attachment. Just trying to catchup, holy cow you've all been busy, love the excitement.

Makeme 2020 · Feb 22, 2024

wilzy123 said:
View attachment 57497

DH

buena suerte :-) · Feb 22, 2024

CHIPS said:
Don't we all like this ?!!!
Germany says GOOD MORNING

View attachment 57562

View attachment 57563

ENJOY!!

Pom down under · Feb 22, 2024

Pom down under said:
Belated happy birthday

View attachment 57559

And just in case I’ve missed yours again and you’ve forgotten @Fact Finder

Adam · Feb 22, 2024

mrgds said:
I don"t suppose Sam Altmun's address at the end of the IFS 2024 could include,

20(A) ................... "THATS THE REASON WE WANT $7,000,000,000.00 TO GET THIS
REMBRANT/PECCASO/WORK OF ART AI ARCHITECTURE OUT INTO THE WORLD"

BTW ................. IM CALLING IT EARLY

GREEN BABY ............................ YEAHHHHHHHHH .............................
View attachment 57522

Peccaso? The famous Italian musician with haemorrhoids?

Frangipani · Feb 22, 2024

Fact Finder said:
Here is something else you might like to check:

Is Cambridge Consultants part of Capgemini?

Hi FF,

I have long been aware of Cambridge Consultants being part of Capgemini, as this five-month old post of mine proves:

However, I do not think the job ad’s “description” of the employer matches a multinational IT services and consulting company, to which neuromorphic computing is only one technology among several they are interested in (plus I assume they would pay much better). Also, the mystery job advert looks quite different from those openings listed on the Capgemini website (https://www.capgemini.com/gb-en/careers/join-us/).
So I personally don’t think it is Capgemini either. Of course, I could be mistaken.

My point in replying to @macro ’s post was first and foremost to raise awareness (once again) that AI-generated content cannot simply be accepted at face value. I pointed out two blatant errors and a baffling omission in Perplexity AI’s response, and provided evidence to substantiate my claim. That’s how I like to present my research, so it is transparent for everyone.

Now here comes your reaction: Rather than commenting on the chatbot’s pitfalls in general or simply admitting to the fact that you had been tricked by the AI-generated answer and had overlooked the fact that Cambridge Consultants are actually headquartered in Cambridge and not in London (as the answer engine would like us to believe), you now try to talk your way out of it by claiming that the job ad that explicitly states “Central London location with modern office facilities” (and not just London or Greater London) could be intentionally misleading to attract more applicants, and that in reality the workplace could still be in Cambridge instead, almost 100 km away?! Well, I am sorry, but the burden of proof is on you here, not on me, so if anyone, you should be the one checking with the employment agency. Besides, Cambridge would be a very attractive location in its own right, if you ask me, and the rental prices are presumably much lower, which could be a decisive factor for freelancers.

Astute readers will also have noticed how you attribute the positively connotated adjective “light hearted” to yourself twice (even though it escapes me of what your reply to the original post has to do with a light-hearted game, as on the contrary I believe you were being dead serious) and portray me in a negative light by calling my post “very aggressive research” and “full-throttle analysis” and by asking “How much of your life did you devote to this non event and demanding that I prove the accuracy of my post?”!

I was neither “very aggressive” in my research (instead, I simply pointed out several errors in the AI-generated answer no one else seemed to have noticed) nor did I “demand” anything from you - instead I politely asked you:
“Could you please provide us with some evidence to back up your claim?”

Let me remind you of your own words in your recent argument with @Schnitzel lover:

Fact Finder said:
It’s a problem with making unsupported statements on this anonymous TSEx forum where the one rule is that every unsupported claim should not be given any weight until a poster verifies it for themselves.

And that’s exactly what I am trying to do here.

So that sole article submitted on June 24, 2021 (!) as well as your memory of another one you say you forwarded to Brainchip in 2022 and their email reply is all you’ve got to corroborate your claim that Imperial College London “are deeply engaged with Intel and publish papers regarding Loihi fairly regularly”? If what you claim were true, those numerous publications should be easy to find online, right? So where are they hiding? And why is the only search result I get for Loihi on the Imperial College website a fleeting mention alongside TrueNorth in a 2019 talk abstract by guest speaker Prof Steve Ferber from the University of Manchester (who developed SpiNNaker)?
(https://www.imperial.ac.uk/events/96903/building-brains-artificial-and-biological-intelligence/)

Well, I am not surprised you didn’t come up with much, as of course I had done a quick Google search myself before politely asking you (not demanding!) to provide evidence (that I couldn’t find).

Fact Finder said:
A two minute search on Google Scholar threw up this paper but as I said they come up quite often.

No, that is simply not true! I did another, more extensive search to double-check.
So a) either you made an honest mistake
b) you are deliberately lying
c) I am too dumb to find the other papers, or
d) the search algorithms here in Germany are vastly different from those in Australia.

Oh, and let’s briefly have a look at the 2021 research paper you shared as “evidence”:
Loihi is mentioned a total of five times (including one reference), and I will let everyone decide for themselves whether or not there is any indication at all the Imperial College researchers were deeply engaged with Intel and working with Loihi at the time, as you claim:

So I hereby challenge you to post links to at least three to four publications by Imperial College researchers about the research they have allegedly done and still do with Loihi to prove your claim that “they are deeply engaged with Intel and publish papers regarding Loihi fairly regularly.” That should be a piece of cake for you, given that you seem to have a way more effective search engine than me. Otherwise we must assume that your claim is totally unfounded.

You may not like me, and that is fine with me (although it irks me how at times you post supposedly new information or profusely thank others for generously sharing reveals, (deliberately?) ignoring the fact that I had already posted about the exact same thing earlier - I am happy to provide proof), but don’t dish it out, if you can’t take it. It’s double standards to ask others to substantiate their unfounded claims, but then take offence when the same yardstick is applied to you. And if it turns out your own claim has no substance, that is entirely your problem and not that of the person who had asked you for evidence.

So please either substantiate your claim or own up to having made a mistake - it’s as simple as that.

Highly likely not my opinion only,
Frangipani

wilzy123 · Feb 22, 2024

Makeme 2020 said:
DH

I'm sorry buddy... he seems to have gone. Are you taking his place?

CHIPS · Feb 22, 2024

CHIPS said:
Don't we all like this ?!!!
Germany says GOOD MORNING

View attachment 57562

View attachment 57563

Correction

!!!

RobjHunt · Feb 22, 2024

If I was somewhat of an optimist, I'd say that @Fact Finder 's "Tipping Point" may very well becoming evident soon.

Iseki · Feb 22, 2024

Frangipani said:
Hi FF,

I have long been aware of Cambridge Consultants being part of Capgemini, as this five-month old post of mine proves:

View attachment 57318

However, I do not think the job ad’s “description” of the employer matches a multinational IT services and consulting company, to which neuromorphic computing is only one technology among several they are interested in (plus I assume they would pay much better). Also, the mystery job advert looks quite different from those openings listed on the Capgemini website (https://www.capgemini.com/gb-en/careers/join-us/).
So I personally don’t think it is Capgemini either. Of course, I could be mistaken.

My point in replying to @macro ’s post was first and foremost to raise awareness (once again) that AI-generated content cannot simply be accepted at face value. I pointed out two blatant errors and a baffling omission in Perplexity AI’s response, and provided evidence to substantiate my claim. That’s how I like to present my research, so it is transparent for everyone.

Now here comes your reaction: Rather than commenting on the chatbot’s pitfalls in general or simply admitting to the fact that you had been tricked by the AI-generated answer and had overlooked the fact that Cambridge Consultants are actually headquartered in Cambridge and not in London (as the answer engine would like us to believe), you now try to talk your way out of it by claiming that the job ad that explicitly states “Central London location with modern office facilities” (and not just London or Greater London) could be intentionally misleading to attract more applicants, and that in reality the workplace could still be in Cambridge instead, almost 100 km away?! Well, I am sorry, but the burden of proof is on you here, not on me, so if anyone, you should be the one checking with the employment agency. Besides, Cambridge would be a very attractive location in its own right, if you ask me, and the rental prices are presumably much lower, which could be a decisive factor for freelancers.

Astute readers will also have noticed how you attribute the positively connotated adjective “light hearted” to yourself twice (even though it escapes me of what your reply to the original post has to do with a light-hearted game, as on the contrary I believe you were being dead serious) and portray me in a negative light by calling my post “very aggressive research” and “full-throttle analysis” and by asking “How much of your life did you devote to this non event and demanding that I prove the accuracy of my post?”!

I was neither “very aggressive” in my research (instead, I simply pointed out several errors in the AI-generated answer no one else seemed to have noticed) nor did I “demand” anything from you - instead I politely asked you:
“Could you please provide us with some evidence to back up your claim?”

Let me remind you of your own words in your recent argument with @Schnitzel lover:

And that’s exactly what I am trying to do here.

So that sole article submitted on June 24, 2021 (!) as well as your memory of another one you say you forwarded to Brainchip in 2022 and their email reply is all you’ve got to corroborate your claim that Imperial College London “are deeply engaged with Intel and publish papers regarding Loihi fairly regularly”? If what you claim were true, those numerous publications should be easy to find online, right? So where are they hiding? And why is the only search result I get for Loihi on the Imperial College website a fleeting mention alongside TrueNorth in a 2019 talk abstract by guest speaker Prof Steve Ferber from the University of Manchester (who developed SpiNNaker)?
(https://www.imperial.ac.uk/events/96903/building-brains-artificial-and-biological-intelligence/)

Well, I am not surprised you didn’t come up with much, as of course I had done a quick Google search myself before politely asking you (not demanding!) to provide evidence (that I couldn’t find).

No, that is simply not true! I did another, more extensive search to double-check.
So a) either you made an honest mistake
b) you are deliberately lying
c) I am too dumb to find the other papers, or
d) the search algorithms here in Germany are vastly different from those in Australia.

Oh, and let’s briefly have a look at the 2021 research paper you shared as “evidence”:
Loihi is mentioned a total of five times (including one reference), and I will let everyone decide for themselves whether or not there is any indication at all the Imperial College researchers were deeply engaged with Intel and working with Loihi at the time, as you claim:

View attachment 57560

View attachment 57561

So I hereby challenge you to post links to at least three to four publications by Imperial College researchers about the research they have allegedly done and still do with Loihi to prove your claim that “they are deeply engaged with Intel and publish papers regarding Loihi fairly regularly.” That should be a piece of cake for you, given that you seem to have a way more effective search engine than me. Otherwise we must assume that your claim is totally unfounded.

You may not like me, and that is fine with me (although it irks me how at times you post supposedly new information or profusely thank others for generously sharing reveals, (deliberately?) ignoring the fact that I had already posted about the exact same thing earlier - I am happy to provide proof), but don’t dish it out, if you can’t take it. It’s double standards to ask others to substantiate their unfounded claims, but then take offence when the same yardstick is applied to you. And if it turns out your own claim has no substance, that is entirely your problem and not that of the person who had asked you for evidence.

So please either substantiate your claim or own up to having made a mistake - it’s as simple as that.

Highly likely not my opinion only,
Frangipani

C'mon Aussie. No one is looking for confirmation, just civility, but you seem to be self-harming. I'm happy to watch out for any new developments in this conundrum and report back if it's material.

Makeme 2020 · Feb 22, 2024

wilzy123 said:
I'm sorry buddy... he seems to have gone. Are you taking his place?

DH

wilzy123 said:
I'm sorry buddy... he seems to have gone. Are you taking his place?

DH

wilzy123 · Feb 22, 2024

Makeme 2020 said:
DH

DH

Uh oh.... aneurysm o'clock

CHIPS · Feb 22, 2024

I want to thank all those who congratulated me to my yesterday's birthday

Thank you!
The day was a great success, but I do not know if I can repeat a similar happening next year.

I did my best, as promised, but I am still waiting for the great announcement by Sam Altman.

He had promised me to do so yesterday still, but I guess the dinner and the drinks were just too good and
too much so that he forgot. He fell fully dressed onto his bed and right into sleep without thinking about us.

So please do not blame me that you need to wait for his confirmation.
My orders to him were clear, but you all know now how busy and fast changing a day can be. And some people are just not reliable.

Have a great night / day!

7für7 · Feb 22, 2024

CHIPS said:
Thank you @MDhere . Yes, actually I did

Hey I missed it! Happy birthday from me as well!

Slade · Feb 22, 2024

Frangipani said:
Hi FF,

I have long been aware of Cambridge Consultants being part of Capgemini, as this five-month old post of mine proves:

View attachment 57318

However, I do not think the job ad’s “description” of the employer matches a multinational IT services and consulting company, to which neuromorphic computing is only one technology among several they are interested in (plus I assume they would pay much better). Also, the mystery job advert looks quite different from those openings listed on the Capgemini website (https://www.capgemini.com/gb-en/careers/join-us/).
So I personally don’t think it is Capgemini either. Of course, I could be mistaken.

My point in replying to @macro ’s post was first and foremost to raise awareness (once again) that AI-generated content cannot simply be accepted at face value. I pointed out two blatant errors and a baffling omission in Perplexity AI’s response, and provided evidence to substantiate my claim. That’s how I like to present my research, so it is transparent for everyone.

Now here comes your reaction: Rather than commenting on the chatbot’s pitfalls in general or simply admitting to the fact that you had been tricked by the AI-generated answer and had overlooked the fact that Cambridge Consultants are actually headquartered in Cambridge and not in London (as the answer engine would like us to believe), you now try to talk your way out of it by claiming that the job ad that explicitly states “Central London location with modern office facilities” (and not just London or Greater London) could be intentionally misleading to attract more applicants, and that in reality the workplace could still be in Cambridge instead, almost 100 km away?! Well, I am sorry, but the burden of proof is on you here, not on me, so if anyone, you should be the one checking with the employment agency. Besides, Cambridge would be a very attractive location in its own right, if you ask me, and the rental prices are presumably much lower, which could be a decisive factor for freelancers.

Astute readers will also have noticed how you attribute the positively connotated adjective “light hearted” to yourself twice (even though it escapes me of what your reply to the original post has to do with a light-hearted game, as on the contrary I believe you were being dead serious) and portray me in a negative light by calling my post “very aggressive research” and “full-throttle analysis” and by asking “How much of your life did you devote to this non event and demanding that I prove the accuracy of my post?”!

I was neither “very aggressive” in my research (instead, I simply pointed out several errors in the AI-generated answer no one else seemed to have noticed) nor did I “demand” anything from you - instead I politely asked you:
“Could you please provide us with some evidence to back up your claim?”

Let me remind you of your own words in your recent argument with @Schnitzel lover:

And that’s exactly what I am trying to do here.

So that sole article submitted on June 24, 2021 (!) as well as your memory of another one you say you forwarded to Brainchip in 2022 and their email reply is all you’ve got to corroborate your claim that Imperial College London “are deeply engaged with Intel and publish papers regarding Loihi fairly regularly”? If what you claim were true, those numerous publications should be easy to find online, right? So where are they hiding? And why is the only search result I get for Loihi on the Imperial College website a fleeting mention alongside TrueNorth in a 2019 talk abstract by guest speaker Prof Steve Ferber from the University of Manchester (who developed SpiNNaker)?
(https://www.imperial.ac.uk/events/96903/building-brains-artificial-and-biological-intelligence/)

Well, I am not surprised you didn’t come up with much, as of course I had done a quick Google search myself before politely asking you (not demanding!) to provide evidence (that I couldn’t find).

No, that is simply not true! I did another, more extensive search to double-check.
So a) either you made an honest mistake
b) you are deliberately lying
c) I am too dumb to find the other papers, or
d) the search algorithms here in Germany are vastly different from those in Australia.

Oh, and let’s briefly have a look at the 2021 research paper you shared as “evidence”:
Loihi is mentioned a total of five times (including one reference), and I will let everyone decide for themselves whether or not there is any indication at all the Imperial College researchers were deeply engaged with Intel and working with Loihi at the time, as you claim:

View attachment 57560

View attachment 57561

So I hereby challenge you to post links to at least three to four publications by Imperial College researchers about the research they have allegedly done and still do with Loihi to prove your claim that “they are deeply engaged with Intel and publish papers regarding Loihi fairly regularly.” That should be a piece of cake for you, given that you seem to have a way more effective search engine than me. Otherwise we must assume that your claim is totally unfounded.

You may not like me, and that is fine with me (although it irks me how at times you post supposedly new information or profusely thank others for generously sharing reveals, (deliberately?) ignoring the fact that I had already posted about the exact same thing earlier - I am happy to provide proof), but don’t dish it out, if you can’t take it. It’s double standards to ask others to substantiate their unfounded claims, but then take offence when the same yardstick is applied to you. And if it turns out your own claim has no substance, that is entirely your problem and not that of the person who had asked you for evidence.

So please either substantiate your claim or own up to having made a mistake - it’s as simple as that.

Highly likely not my opinion only,
Frangipani

I’m betting that most people who read your post regretted giving up the time that it took to do so.

Esq.111 · Feb 22, 2024

Chippers,

NVIDIA on an absolute tear on the German market , Nasdaq futures up, oh and solid volume with a mild rise in our stock also in Germany.

Shorters will not be very comfortable pressently....

.

Regards ,
Esq.

Frangipani · Feb 22, 2024

CHIPS said:
I want to thank all those who congratulated me to my yesterday's birthday Thank you!
The day was a great success, but I do not know if I can repeat a similar happening next year.

I did my best, as promised, but I am still waiting for the great announcement by Sam Altman.
He had promised me to do so yesterday still, but I guess the dinner and the drinks were just too good and
too much so that he forgot. He fell fully dressed onto his bed and right into sleep without thinking about us.
So please do not blame me that you need to wait for his confirmation.
My orders to him were clear, but you all know now how busy and fast changing a day can be. And some people are just not reliable.

Have a great night / day!

Herzlichen Glückwunsch nachträglich auch von mir!
You happen to share your birthday with my eldest son, so I agree February 21 is a very special date!

Food4 thought · Feb 22, 2024

Pom down under said:
As it Thursday tomorrow I’m expecting we might see a red day

View attachment 57533

Are you on drugs

BRN Discussion Ongoing

Regular

Regular

BOB Bank of Brainchip

Top 20

Regular

Top 20

Founding Member

Regular

Regular

Regular

Regular

Founding Member

Regular

Top 20

Top 20

Fascinatingly Intuitive.

Top 20

Regular

Similar threads