> The [human] brain seems to be hundreds of thousands to millions of times more energy efficient than any kind of current AI
I don't know about that... I've consumed quite a few calories in my lifetime directly, plus there is all the energy needed for me to live in a modern civilization and make the source material available to me for learning (schools, libraries, internet) and I still only have a minuscule fraction of the information in my head that a modern LLM does after a few months of training.
Translated into KWh, I've used very roughly 50,000 KWh just in terms of food calories... but a modern human uses between 20x and 200x as much energy in supporting infrastructure than the food calories they consume, so we're at about 1 to 10 GWh, which according to GPT5 is in the ballpark for what it took to train GPT3 or GPT4... GPT5 itself needing about 25x to 30x as much energy to train... certainly not 100s of thousands to millions of times as much. And again, these LLMs have a lot more information encoded into them available for nearly instant response than even the smartest human does, so we're not really comparing apples with apples here.
In short, while I wouldn't rule out that the brain uses quantum effects somehow, I don't think there's any spectacular energy-efficiency there to bolster that argument.
> plus there is all the energy needed for me to live in a modern civilization and make the source material available to me for learning (schools, libraries, internet)
To be fair, this is true of LLMs too, and arguably more true for them than it is for humans. LLMs would've been pretty much impossible to achieve w/o massive amounts of digitized human-written text (though now ofc they could be bootstrapped with synthetic data).
> but a modern human uses between 20x and 200x as much energy in supporting infrastructure than the food calories they consume, so we're at about 1 to 10 GWh, which according to GPT5 is in the ballpark for what it took to train GPT3 or GPT4
But if we're including all the energy for supporting infrastructure for humans, shouldn't we also include it for GPT? Mining metals, constructing the chips, etc.? Also, the "modern" is carrying a lot of the weight here. Pre-modern humans were still pretty smart and presumably nearly as efficient in their learning, despite using much less energy.
I see everybody talking about the nitrate, but there is another substance in beets that might be relevant... betaine, also known as trimethylglycine HCL. I take about 800mg of this pure in my orange juice in the mornings and it gives me a very noticeable boost. But it is possible that this effect is specific to me and maybe other people who are "under-methylators" (which I think is a somewhat pseudo-scientific concept, but it led me to try betaine and I got results).
Betaine was first isolated from beets, hence the name, and as the other name, trimethylglycine, hints it has 3 easily donated methyl groups, so if you do need those for some reason it may be useful to you. It's also pretty cheap and unlikely to be harmful.
While comparing things... a colony of leaf-cutter ants (which form some of the largest colonies with as many as 2 million individuals when the colony is mature) has roughly the same metabolic rate as cow (easily measured from the CO2 at the exits of their nest). So don't think of ants as tiny animals, think of ant colonies as fairly large animals.
Yes, ants evolved from wasps, and it's really not that surprising if you take a close look at a typical ant and a typical wasp, pretty much the only difference are wings and coloring. There also exist wingless wasps, and some of them are black and really quite indistinguishable from ants by non-entomologist. And that's after over 100 million years since the ants diverged from the wasps! Talk about a successful evolutionary design. Your closest relative from 100 million years ago was a little vaguely rat-like thing. (Edit to answer your specific question: the ancestor of ants and wasps obviously was winged and flying, since both families still have at least some winged members).
As a sibling has already pointed out ants do fly during "nuptial flight", and then discard their wings... wings would only be a hindrance for their largely underground lifestyle. Also ants have retained the stinger which also functions as an ovipositor (egg layer), and some species still use it for defense and pack a wallop of a poison, right up there with some of the of the worst wasps. Google "bullet ant" for some good stuff. Other ants just bite, and the burning you feel is from their saliva which consists mostly of an acid named after ants: fourmic acid (ant is "formica" in latin).
Edit to add one more random factoid that will surprise a lot of people: termites are not related to ants at all, and they evolved from... (drumroll)... cockroaches! It's rather harder to see the resemblance, except for their diet... both are capable of digesting (with help from endosymbiotic microbes) pure cellulose. And while termites don't really resemble ants either, parallel evolution has chosen the same strategy of retaining the wings for the fertile individuals who go on a nuptial flight and then discard their wings and try to found new colonies.
When you do `python -m pip install` you're going to get a version of pip that has the same idea of what its environment looks like as the python executable, which is what you want, and which isn't guaranteed with the the `pip` executable in your path.
As an aside, I disagree with the `python3` part... the `python3` name is a crutch that it's long past time to discard; if in 2025 just typing `python` gives you a python 2.x executable your workstation needs some serious updating and/or clean-up, and the sooner you find that out, the better.
Perhaps, but that's not really up to users. Linux distributions, for example, control this pretty directly. You can alias it, but why bother? If you know that Ubuntu links python3, every Ubuntu installation that gets python from apt is going to do this.
Yes, but on all reasonably recent distros (including all current
"LTS" releases) just `python` will also get you python 3.x. If there is still a python 2.x on your system you'll have to type `python2` to get it. So it is up to the user... to upgrade their system. You really don't want to work on a system that's so outdated that `python` is still python 2.x.
Energy storage. This is making very rapid progress already, but "solving" it is has the highest payoff for tackling global heating.
Within the field of energy storage there are two important sub-fields... grid-level storage (cheap, long-lasting) and high-density (for transport applications). Both fields are already making good progress but I think I'd focus on grid-level first. Success here means basically being able to make the whole world's electricity grids "green". It will also be a massive economic stimulus because electricity will get very cheap.
No, you don't need "unlimited" resources for this, like I said, rapid progress is being made right now, it's just not quite rapid enough for the urgency and more focused funding and stimulus could definitely accelerate things. So if I had a lot of money and top talent I would distribute those among the handful of most promising approaches that are already being tried and keep funneling them there until it's "solved" for what we need.
You are not thinking big enough. Energy storage is merely a stopgap.
With unlimited resources you can build a global power grid, which will completely remove the need for any energy storage. "Just" move the abundant generated electricity from the sunny and windy parts of earth to the dark and windless parts.
When I first read this a question jumped out at me: Wait, Neanderthals were able to render fat? That requires boiling, and doesn't boiling require pottery?
This led me down a bit of a rabbit-hole. It turns out that no, you don't need pottery to boil things, because you can do it just fine in combustible materials like animal hide or birch bark... so long as you keep the water level consistently high enough, because then the container material will never get hotter than 100 degrees Celcius! So that's kind of obvious once you think about it, but what's interesting about this is that nobody ever considered it until just recently and the whole of paleo-anthropology "knew" that humans couldn't boil things until the invention of pottery![1] To me this is a particularly interesting and surprising example of how, in scientific disciplines, bad assumptions can stick around unquestioned even though from the perspective of physics it's quite obvious that they're bad assumptions.
Edit: add reference to some experimental verification[2].
In high school science class we boiled water using standard printer paper: fold a sheet into a box, put it on a stand over a bunsen burner, fill it with water, turn up the bunsen burner.
Not only does it not burn but it retains more of its structural integrity.
Just because you have a map doesn’t mean you know where you are in said map. Reading the landscape and elevation changes around you and matching that to a map is a skill into itself. Even harder without a compass.
Even if you had a map, a compass, knew where you are on the map, and had a target destination on the map… it would still be hard to navigate, again a skill all by itself.
Someone who doesn't know how a map works, likely won't have much other survival skill giving him benefit from the map cooking method.
Personally, destroying my only map (or risking it) would be the last desperate method that I would consider trying.
Survival tip number one is btw not bother much with foraging or trying to boil potential poisonous plants to mess up your stomach, but find the best direction and focus on walking, if no help will come.
(One can go without food for days, but not without water)
When was this - are we saying that high school science teachers were aware of a fact that was not acknowledged by historians and anthropologists? Quite interesting!
You might be entertained to learn that this happens _all the time_. The spearpoint of application is often a _long way_ from the theory. So much so that they can miss obvious things.
We used to do this on the camp fire in Boy Scouts with paper cups. The older boys would learn it in science class and would use it to wow the younger ones.
With direct flame on it? I guess it was removing water molecules slower than it was absorbing water. As long as it was saturated it would be fine. Great experiment.
There's also a great experiment with a normal baloon, keep a tiny bit of water in it and the you can hold the inflated balloon over a flame as long as the water doesn't boil away
the mechanism of it is not that paper is saturated with water, but that while there is water in the container, paper doesn't get hotter than 100C and a bit, not enough to ignite.
I'm very confused how you make a watertight box with a sheet of standard printer paper - would seem like either it would very quickly be a wet mess, or you'd have to fold it so many times to have any durability that it would be too small to contain a meaningful amount of water.
> the whole of paleo-anthropology "knew" that humans couldn't boil things until the invention of pottery
Is that really true? That sounds unlikely when there are so many contemporary counterexamples. If you have an interest in cooking, there are several traditional meals where cooking is done in other ways. Especially so for indigenous people who have little access to metals or clay. For example on Borneo the traditional way to cook rice over fire is inside bamboo stalks. As long as the water doesn't boil off, you can cook in almost any vessel.
Ya, I don't believe ```paleo-anthropology "knew" that humans couldn't boil things until the invention of pottery```, it doesn't pass 'the laugh test'. There are many survivalist youtube channels that demo multiple methods to boil water without pottery [1][2]. If I were an anthropologist, I would be looking at modern survivalist methods to get inspiration for 'ancient' habits. Surely the folks that have studied their whole lives have even better sources of inspiration to investigate. Unless we have some source to back it up, I can't see how this remarkable claim should be trusted.
There is often a knowledge gap between different fields of expertise, someone else already cited medical doctors and psychologists reinventing well known mathematics badly. Also youtube attracts copy cats that use modern tools out of frame, so it isn't a reliable source of information. I can already see the discoveries "Great wall of china most likely build by single man with a stick, just ignore the excavator tracks".
yeah I remember learning in school that with sufficiently good heat conduction you could boil water in a paper cup, because the burning point of paper was higher than the boiling point of water.
Heh, wanted to make a comment saying this isn't 'super' recent knowlegde because I vividly remember Jean M. Auel using it in her first novels written in the 80's, and basically all the technical stuff she wrote was researched, ony to find out [1] indeed opens with a quote from said novels.
I loved those books when I was younger, was randomly thinking about them the other day and couldn’t remember the name for the first book and got lost in Wikipedia
Yes if you search youtube you can find people showing how to boil water inside a plastic bag. Typically they show this in survival situation scenarios. You apparently can also do it in a wooden container if done right.
But as to your question wouldn't they need to have pots? Well I know we don't have evidence of that but it wouldn't surprise me.
Another method show for survival shows a person taking a fallen tree and building a fire by it. Then you place some hot burning pieces on top of the log. Keep adding them and burning on top of the log until it burns a bowl sized indentation. Then you take a rock or stick and scrape the hole and get it clean sort of. Then you put water into that and if no container to carry water is shows soaking a shirt and carrying it that way. After the large bowl sized hole is filled with water you take a few rocks that were sitting in the fire and drop them in. You will be amazed how fast it will boil the water. This is done to allow you to drink from a potentially unsafe water source.
I guess what I am thinking is that there are probably dozens of ways they could have achieved it. Ways that with our knowledge of today escapes us but to them it was common knowledge. If I had to take a guess they would have used rocks and use a large flat rock and encircle that rock with rocks making a pit or rocks then covered the sides with dirt. Then dug a hole under part of the large flat rock and made fire under it. This primitive pot would not work well at first but my guess is that as fat melted and oozed into the cracks it would eventually seal and then would work very well to boil things. Anyways just fun to think about I know very little about the time period.
IIUC the easiest way to boil stuff without ceramics is usually in an animal's stomach or intestines. I believe you can also do it in a lined wicker basket.
I'm not sure exactly how these things are done but both of them seem much easier to figure out than how to fire a pot! (Requires very high temperature and a good understanding of the material to stop it cracking)
You have to invent a whole lot more to have a plastic bottle or even a paper drinking cup, at that point, it'd be simpler to just invent pottery, instead.
Notice that all of your proposed pots will biodegrade in a few decades (centuries in the best case) thus leaving no evidence behind. There are many options, and we can easily test to show many of them work. However there is no way to know which method(s) they used.
No archaeologist would call hide or wood pottery and ceramics don't turn into pebbles. Occasional ceramic use can be very visible archaeologically if the pottery preserves. It's an inert material in the absence of water, after all. In the presence of water though, it turns into dust rather than pebbles.
Much of the middle east, Greece, etc have many large sites with weathered pottery shards in the shape of pebbles, because pottery shards are flat-ish. Millions of ceramic rocks.
In the presence of water... you will find the round, flat ones with a perfect "pebbles shape."
This is extremely common where I live. I have an aquarium full of them.
The "thing about pottery" is that many cultures made (and broke) a lot of it.
Its very obvious in the stratography when a pottery making culture moves in. There will be shards in every handful of earth.
Occasional pottery use, like figurines or beads.. are not like that. They're only really found "in situ," graves or something.
Stone boiling (dropping heated rocks into water-filled containers) was also a widespread pre-pottery technique that Neanderthals likely employed alongside the hide/bark methods you mentioned.
Getting somewhat off-topic and maybe it's more evident to other people, but for me understanding this energy transfer was eye-opening for my cooking abilities!
Like, my mushrooms aren't going to actually cook as I want as long as they render water because the water is cooling the pan down. Obvious in retrospect, never really fully realised it. Also means I can blast the heat up to get rid of this water faster, it's not going to make the pan hotter than 100C while there's a layer of water.
> Also means I can blast the heat up to get rid of this water faster, it's not going to make the pan hotter than 100C while there's a layer of water.
Eventually you boil water off the surface faster than heat can penetrate inside the mushroom and so you can burn the outside while the inside is still wet. How much heat the mushroom can handle before this happens is left as an exercise to the reader.
It's a common mistake. Just this weekend I followed a recipe from a well known cooking website for beef stroganoff that said to brown the beef in batches together with batches of onion. That's not a good idea, the onion will release liquid which prevents the beef from browning and once that cooks off the heat required to brown the meat will burn the onion. So I cooked the beef and onion separately instead. The onion can easily be cooked in one big batch, and if you take care not to burn the fond built up by the beef you can deglaze it with the onion. It's a good way to add extra flavor to the finished dish.
I also had a discussion with a roommate once, he criticized my way of cooking pasta. I keep it just barely boiling, but he insisted I should crank it up to max. I explained that it doesn't matter, the water won't get any hotter. I'll just waste electricity making steam. He didn't believe me so I got a thermometer and proved it.
If you want liquid water to go above 100C you need a pressure cooker.
A single good stir at 1-2min of cooking is enough to avoid all sticking (although I still do it a couple more time just in case tbh, the stirring feel tells me how close to cooked they are anyway)
I’ve always used the rolling boil for stirring when making macaroni or other noodles. Maybe a minute of agitation in the beginning to get it going but it lets me set and forget. Maybe add a teaspoon or two of an oil to knock any bubbles out to avoid spill over / foam.
I've thought about that but it's not a problem for me. I throw the pasta in, give it a stir, then leave it until the timer rings. Never have any sticky clumps.
I watched a cook (America’s Test Kitchen?) where they explored different ways of thinking of heat management in pasta. The unbelievable one that worked: boil water, add pasta, turn off heat. The water retains the heat and will still penetrate the pasta. I have never actually tried it myself, but it makes sense.
It's not really that unbelievable. The pasta just has to be in hot water, whether it's 99.9C or 95C doesn't make much of a difference. I use this technique to boil eggs - boil water, turn off heat, add eggs. It seems to help avoid cracked eggs.
I also hadn't thought to boil pasta that way though.
FWIW, I boil my eggs in steam: 5mm-1cm of water in the pot, put the egg in, put the lid on it, heat it up until the water starts boiling, and then turn it off, and wait, the steam will continue boiling the egg, and the residual heat will continue producing steam for a while.
eggs in cold water, bring to boil, boil for 3 mins, remove from heat. never cracks, eggs never overcook no matter how long until you remove them from the water.
I think about these things every time I cook, but it never occurred to me to just try it. I always assumed that the "reaction rate doubles for 10C change" rule of thumb meant it would take much longer, plus presumably cooking is endothermic.
That's hilarious. Reminds me of another person in my life who just burns everything. I keep telling her to calm down with the heat and she keeps putting her induction top on boost then just going to do something else while things burn. She goes through teflon(or whatever they replaced it with) frying pans on a monthly basis, she has like 4 of them right now and they're all flaking off because she overheats them. Like properly destroyed. All her plastic utensils are messed up, molten and broken because she just leaves them on these 1000 degree frying pans.
I tried buying a carbon steel pan for her thinking it can take the heat but after a month it was rusty and caked with carbonized food that she never took the time to scrub off. In hindsight a stainless steel pan would probably have been better but I'm sure she would have found a way to destroy that too.
this is also why cooking advice shifted from "don't wash mushrooms" to "wash mushrooms". If you're cooking your mushrooms properly you'll boil off all the water anyways, so it doesn't matter. It's only if you *don't* cook your mushrooms properly that washing mushrooms makes everything more watery than you'd like.
I don’t wash mushroom because that makes them slimy, making them much more annoying to cut (and also it takes more time than not doing it). I can take a little dirt!
I was an avid non-washer until experts like Kenji [1] started weighing in. You definitely have to hold off washing them until the last moment to avoid sliminess. Although I don't find the time added to be all that consequential in the grand scheme of things. Obviously you're correct that it'd be *more* time, however.
Is it me or is it odd that that first paper doesn't seem to cite any source for the misconception they're trying to argue against? I don't see any cites for people who believed that boiling could not happen in fragile containers.
So my question would be: how many anthropologists believed that, and when did that stop being a majority belief, if it ever was?
It’s common knowledge, less so now because we never need to do it. But go back in time and it’s common frontier knowledge, you can do this in a pinch. And in Medieval times, you can boil something in a pouch.
It’s just less reliable, the upper part hanging the bag could burn and you could lose everything. It’s just less durable. So anthropologists are likely to argue about how prevalent it was. Wouldn’t you want to transition to a more durable way as quickly as possible?
> Wouldn’t you want to transition to a more durable way as quickly as possible?
But what is durable? Pottery is fragile itself, and can break if you heat it too fast. I have not used either pottery or baskets on a fire so I can't comment myself, but I see no reason to think pottery is better. It probably depends partially on the society, if you are nomad hunter-gathers, pottery is heavy and breaks too easily, while farmers can just leave the pottery by where they cook and so it may be better.
> I don't see any cites for people who believed that boiling could not happen in fragile containers.
> The people around me aren't anthropologists claiming to understand ancient societies.
Are they people or not? It's a simple and quick experiment to have an idea of what current people think about this fact. You'll not be able to write a scientific paper about it but it will good enough to for a reasonable opinion on the topic.
Your first source does not support your argument that paleo-anthropology believed pottery was required for boiling. Reading just the abstract it's clear that the source is auguring for the appearance of boiling earlier than the common view that fire cracked rocks (that would have been used for boiling by placing in any water container) marked the earliest point of boiling. The Upper Paleolithic mentioned as the first appearance of fire cracked rocks, and thus assumed initial boiling, is ~5,000+ years before the appearance of pottery.
Ignoring the reference to pottery the assumption that boiling must require heated rocks is probably incorrect. I think this is a common failure mode of archeology, where evidence is preserved (cracked rocks) is favored despite obvious selection biases.
I'm not sure that's the mechanism at work because I have boiled eggs using plastic cups and also waxed paper cups many times. I don't think any water is boiling through. The cup itself is staying at 100C, which is below its ignition point.
The cup isn't exactly 100C, it's being heated by the flame. But it's only a few hundred microns thick, and the back is in direct contact with the 100C water. One side is exposed to an air/methane flame at around 2000C/3500F, which (while very hot) is a poor thermal conductor, and the other side is in contact with the water. The temperature at the interface is somewhere in the middle.
Also, you do you, but it's probably not a great idea to boil food in plastic cups or "waxed" (often coated in a styrene compound, not real "wax") paper cups...
> experiments recently demonstrated that organic perishable containers, e.g., made out of deer skin or birch bark, placed directly on a fire, are capable of heating water sufficiently to process food, with the advantages of wet-cooking beginning at lower, sub-boiling temperatures than thus far acknowledged
Reminds me of the anecdote of an early fisherman who cast his net, looked at that catch, and concluded that fishes have scales and fins, and are always at least 5cm long.
When I was a kid, me and friends used plastic bags to boil water for cooking when out in the forest or at a beach on the nearby river. As long as you had enough water in the bag, it worked great (though there were probably some fun chemicals being released from the bag...)
I wonder if attempts to prevent charring of such a design could be what led to pottery. One can imagine smearing mud or clay on the underside of bark or animal hide pots to increase their longevity. Long enough exposure to high heat and ?
I find it fascinating that paleo-anthropologists didn't know about using leather or bark pots when those are extensively documented and presumably well-known to recent-ish-history-anthropologists. Is there just very little overlap and communication between the groups?
The paper linked by the grandparent claims that archaeologists and paleo-anthropologists believed that it was impossible for humans to boil until the invention of stone-carving and pottery because they thought the containers would burn.
Thanks, but I don't think that's exactly what it says. It says
"Most archaeologists assume that boiling in perishable containers cannot pre-date the appearance of fire-cracked rock (FCR)"
"This paper has two principal goals. The first is to alert archaeologists and others to the fact that one can easily and effectively boil in perishable containers made of bark, hide, leaves, even paper and plastic, placed directly on the fire and without using heated stones."
I would think you would not even have to expose it directly to fire, you could put it on a rock above or near the fire. Also you can of course heat rocks in a fire and put them into water to boil it.
It can't conduct heat to human skin. The concept, in this case, wouldn't be to merely prevent a material from catching fire, but to keep the person from being burned or steam-boiled.
However, the general concept could also be applied to protecting things besides people, such as vehicles or buildings.
I don't actually know very much about the wavelengths used by DEW, so I'm not clear if water, alone, is a practical as shielding, but could be used as a heat sink, especially when factoring in latent heat of vaporization.
What would speak against carving a cooking pot from stone? One thing I could find is that they might explode but I guess that would also depend on the type of rock.
That "gap between stimulus and response" is in some circles known as "mindfulness". And meditation is an effective exercise for building and strengthening that gap.
That seems to fly over a lot of heads.
Anyone who actually meditated will tell you the process of fixing yourself through meditation is painstakingly slow, you mostly become aware of how your mind does not do what it is supposed to, and if you stop meditating you quickly lose all progress.
What the post describes is essentially some form of micro journaling to build a cached hashmap of the thought patterns you want your mind to have.
Interesting to hear meditation described this way—gap. I’ve followed (as a neophyte) the works of Thich Nhat Hanh, and if asked I would say he describes meditation as a practice of focus. Not that I see any incompatibility with the idea of gap in meditation. I quite like it.
Also interesting is the notion of gap as I hear it used in psychology to describe post-traumatic stress.
In the first case the gap is too quick. In the last, it’s too long.
Also, in literature, another definition describes irony as having a “gap”.
“Gap” is obviously polysemous in these applications, but contain the same notion of spacing (which is also critical in music and art!).
I don't know about that... I've consumed quite a few calories in my lifetime directly, plus there is all the energy needed for me to live in a modern civilization and make the source material available to me for learning (schools, libraries, internet) and I still only have a minuscule fraction of the information in my head that a modern LLM does after a few months of training.
Translated into KWh, I've used very roughly 50,000 KWh just in terms of food calories... but a modern human uses between 20x and 200x as much energy in supporting infrastructure than the food calories they consume, so we're at about 1 to 10 GWh, which according to GPT5 is in the ballpark for what it took to train GPT3 or GPT4... GPT5 itself needing about 25x to 30x as much energy to train... certainly not 100s of thousands to millions of times as much. And again, these LLMs have a lot more information encoded into them available for nearly instant response than even the smartest human does, so we're not really comparing apples with apples here.
In short, while I wouldn't rule out that the brain uses quantum effects somehow, I don't think there's any spectacular energy-efficiency there to bolster that argument.