BulgarianIdiot

I tend to write facades for many libraries/APIs I use and use the facades, not the actual APIs throughout the project. The facades, aside from being simpler to replace in case I need to switch dependencies, also use a simpler mental model suitable for the project (and me).

Even when you're in free fall, it takes a bit to pick up speed due to air resistance. But eventually you fall.

So you're saying his principles bend to support his business interests, instead of the other way around. How novel.

You won’t need frameworks with AI. Just libraries. The framework is the scaffolding that now can be purpose generated.

Strong 12 year old troll vibes.

Protected by whom from whom? OpenAI doesn’t have to align its tos to free speech.

Well, I'm older than you, son.

Do you feel endeared.

And you need to take it easy and stop crackpotting all over the thread, you're doing your own side a disservice. If you want people to dismiss the UFO phenomenon, keep going with the meltdown, though.

Those are interesting reads, thanks. But I'm noticing social media runners keep making the same mistake again, and again, and again, and again. We don't need to tag moderated behaviors. We don't need algorithms for feed generation. We need social media which doesn't decide for us, or tries to model itself after our supposed "engagement" and needs and wants. We need social media that allows ourselves to be the algorithm. AI has a bright future, but the human brain remains the best evaluator of what a human wants or needs.

AI is optimizing for criteria which doesn't match what a person wants. Reacting to posts doesn't mean the person wanted to see them at all. All those algorithms are laughable at close inspection, at best they optimize for profit through dopamine traps & creating friction of controversy and echo chambers, under the guise of having to select for the user as the user can't select for themselves.

You're right, but an LLM is already trying to make sense (i.e. predict well) within the constraints given. So if you constrain the syntax, it's trying to fill it with the correct semantics. Doesn't always manage it, but it's trying.

This is similar to the way where if you ask a question in a given language, it responds in that language. But it still follows the instructions (hidden prompt) that was given to it only in English.

I.e. an LLM is essentially about finding an intersection of requirements in order to predict output.

If it moved by skipping discrete points, it wouldn't have that effect on the cloud, which is essentially a combination of a continuously moving object pushing away the medium it's moving through, creating a flow, and the Bernoulli effect.

Also I'd like to have a word with the UFO designer on how he synchronized the movement in discrete points with the exact framerate and shutter phase of the camera taking video of it.

Also, I only commented on visual artifacts in this particular video, I didn't outright deny the existence of UFO, which literally just means "unidentified flying object" and yes we've had a bunch of those throughout the decades, as we can't identify everything.

My advice is don't throw more good time after bad. Twitter is not worth investing time in. It's going down mid-term.

It's funny, but I wish it was genuine bad UI and not just physics toys in the form of UI.

Even if I abstract myself from the UFO claim, clues it's likely fake:

1. Zero motion blur despite monstrous speed (there's no such thing as zero-length shutter speed). This seems shot with phone, as well, but no rolling shutter, either.

2. Cloud puff doesn't track well the camera movement & the rest of the cloud (may be compression artifact).

3. Despite the puff (showing the cloud is affected), the rest of the cloud changes no shape, seemingly.

Yup, my take as well. "Oh, look, person who dedicated his life to VR glasses likes VR glasses." Oculus was also going to be a revolution but it stayed a niche. May these folks who explore alternate tech be blessed, but so far I see zero great uses of this tech, aside from simulation for training medics, military, police officers and so on. But those uses require much better latency, resolution & so on and there are already companies serving those niches with devices decidedly more expensive than any consumer can afford.

On the other head, this is the founder of a product that also thought their own product is so good, and yet there's no wide market for it, so far.

The tech has a lot to do with it. But I'm not sure Mastodon or BlueSky has the tech, they're mostly replicating Twitter but with distributed servers. I haven't checked Nostr in detail yet.

To avoid the toxic nature of Twitter you need to allow recursively organized entities/communities which moderate themselves locally, not globally.

In this case you can both allow the "virtuous" to group and be protected as a group, but also the "vicious" to group and be isolated as a group. Unfortunately our understanding of systems is so piss poor, no social media is doing this that I'm aware of.

Well I could say Reddit's subreddits are a step in that direction, although very crude, and the moderators scheme is less than ideal. Let's say more mini-monarchy than mini-democracy.

Abstraction is a way to break down a system to fit in our minds & simulations, including for the purpose of designing it, but it's not what a system truly is, and it's not how it behaves. It's a compromise, like for example your calculator has 8 digits, and shows E if you need more, but this doesn't mean math in the universe is limited to 8 digits.

You can't just decide the fact society is made of humans is an irrelevant detail and model them with little rational balls, or whatever you came up with. Because the balls wouldn't do what we do. And I completely disagree it doesn't matter what the human body does. The human body matters to society a great deal, actually. Say, pollution in cities is absorbed by your human body, and affects health, even mental health, and how long you live. This affects social dynamics immensely or doesn't it? We've had entire social movements based on our understanding of the human body, how we categorize in various ways the human body, and violence done against the human body, choices about the human body, how we treat it medically and so on and so on. Countless examples.

Of course you can successfully model specific narrow events, do a representative sample and try to approximately guess, say the outcome of elections. Doesn't always work, but in this very simple example, you can abstract things. But you need to still abstract with deep understanding of what is abstractable for that specific point in space and time.

This approach fails miserably if you need to predict how society will evolve over time, and more fine-grained detail. Say, just 2 years ago society was largely ignorant of the AI revolution bubbling up based on work by Google & subsequently OpenAI. This is something society did, irreducibly, based on the people in it, and their bodies and neurons. And no basic statistics model that abstract us away would have predicted this.

I wish every time someone established two extreme points, everyone is like you, automatically interpolating an entire space of endless possibilities, countless shades of gray. But this is decidedly NOT how we think, because dichotomies are simpler to mentally process, and in fact ultimatums or "single right solution" situations are easiest to process.

Have you ever seen an online argument? If someone is right, and someone is not AS right as they are, they are a "left shill" and vice versa. If you promote solution A, and someone promotes solution B, then they're "wrong". Not establishing points, just "wrong".

So I think establishing two directions is best accomplished not by marking up two extreme points and leaving the rest to the imagination as our imagination is apparently quite poor.

It's more correct to describe the next step in a direction, and let us take things step by step and know that nuance is inherent to our success, not optional.

Complexity is a bit subjective. Society is ostensibly more complex than us, because it includes us. Of course, so far society is more often less than the sum of our parts, than the other way around. Growth is hard.

"Like all proprietary AI software, I'm sure this app will generate battle plans without explaining why they make sense or what intel they were based on."

AI does what you tell it to do. As you likely know, a NN model never outputs definitive results, we clamp/truncate them to make it so. In areas of life and death you can choose to keep this information and lay it out as part of the way for an AI to establish the reasons behind its decisions and its level of certainty.

You're describing poor practices that come out of likely poor understanding of tech, poor training, maybe perverse economic incentives for Palantir to present its technology in a more assertive way than it should, but we're simply guessing.

AI is what we make it to be, literally.

Prompt engineers taking notes.

Suggesting you can just casually "prompt inject" Palantir's product means you have no clue what the product is.

If "not questioning" is "literally the entire problem", then maybe you should start questioning your quick dismissal the AI advantage.

Why is this article recognizing only two extremes? Either everyone uses the same instance, or there's NO SHARING AT ALL:

"Re-introduce duplication by inlining the abstracted code back into every caller."

Or maybe if there are, say, 10 places dependent on the shared code, we can make them 5 places dependent on one version and 5 places dependent on another?

Forking and merging is part of business as usual in programming and we should be used to it. We should not be shocked that sometimes you have to fork a function because adding more parameters is not feasible, but nor should we declare sharing is therefore wrong or harmful.

Also, how you design parameters is extremely important. One callback parameter may be worth a hundred "normal" ones.

Saying "very obviously" doesn't make it obvious, so break it down for us.

They're attacking your with state of the art AI.

You're attacking them with guilt.

Guess who wins.

Better as in producing more natural variations.

Simpler as in... it needs less compute and/or memory.

We had new types of noise that look better than Perlin noise, but I keep forgetting their name. Simplex (and OpenSimplex), Value Noise, Worley Noise, Wavelet noise, Gabor noise, Curl noise... It was something else, but anyway Simpler is both better and simpler, so why is Perlin so popular still?

If we simply mark denormalized data as internal representation or an index, then denormalized won’t exist and everyone will be happy.

Who decided the point of using databases is normalization? Where is that coming from? Relational databases have existed before the concept of normalization existed. Also an index is nothing more than a partial copy of a table with a different key. It denormalizes you data. Do you use indexes other than pk?

Indexing is a form of denormalization. It rekeys the table from another vantage point to enable optimal different queries. So the presence of denormalized data reveals shortcoming of the indexing capabilities of a system. An index is a projection that is guaranteed synced with the source of truth. And debirmalization of data are all projections.