cowl

that's true of any company. if they didn't pay for building the product, they would be very profitable.

There are very good reason that code should look a certain way and it comes from years of experience and the fact that code is written once but read and modified much more.

When the first bugs come up you see that the velocity was not god sent and you end up hiring one of the many "LLM code fixer" companies that are poping up like mushrooms.

the next response would be "but then i would find myself taking the option that I don't like because the option that I like would put me in a disadvantage so since i can't control my options in order for me to have the best, the other bests should not exist and especially other people can not have better things than what i say is the best because then i would again find myself in choice conflict" Not just apple apologists btw, it's a full category of people who can't enjoy their "choices" without having everyone else have only that "choice"

this is about allowing business to offer other choices, other store rules still would apply. for example if apple would be to require it's option as always present together with the rest in the app, then noone could say anything against it. it's the lack of choice that is the problem not requirements per se.

we will end up again with edge being dominant just because it's the default one installed by Windows.

what you say is nice in theory but you already have the Microsoft backed Edge and Apple backed Safari that are not hamppered by the "need to find a support model" and "not be a loss leader"

And I am not looking forward again to a world where Microsoft disctates web development because for all privacy problems peaople have or think to have with Google, Microsoft ha proven that does way worse and doesn't even care for the image.

All in All Chrome being a loss leader backed by Google has been a good thing for all involved. Developers, Users and 3-rd parties. without it you woudn't have all those 3rd party chrome based browsers.

no, see the problem is that the machine needs a well defined problem, and the "BB(n) grows faster than any defined problem" is well defined but you would not come up with an insight like that by executing the BB(n) function. that insight requires a leap out of the problem into a new area and then sure after it is defined as a new problem you enter again in the computability realm in a different dimension. But if the machine tries to come up with insight like that by executing the BB(n) function it will get stuck in infinite loops.

well you try feeding the Busy Beaver Problem with large N to lean then and see what comes out.

well that is the "beyond computable". we are somehow able to say that this function will not halt, and we wouldnt be able to do that if we only had computable power to simulate it because that would proove that the probem was decidable in the first place.

how you comunicate it does not alter the nature of the problem.

Why should a complete simulation be possible? in fact there are plenty of things we can do that can't be simulated on a Turing machine. just one example the Busy Beaver Problem is an uncountable problem for large N, so by definiton is not coumptable and yet humans can prove properties like "BB(n) grows faster than any computable function"

he starts with "consciousnes is not computable". You can not just ignore it as a central argument withouth explaining why your preference to think on it as basic computability theory makes more sence than his.

What's more, whatever you like to call the transoforming of information into thinked information by definition can not be a (mathematical) function, because it would require all people to process the same information in the same way and this is plainly false

> any kind of theorem or idea communicated to another mathematician needs to be serialized into language which would make it computable.

This is a fallacy. Just because you need to serialize a concept to communicate it doesnt mean the concept itself is computable. This is established and well proven:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems

The fact that we can come up with this kind of uncumputable problems is a big plus in supprt of Penrose's Idea that consciousnes is not computable and goes way beyond compatability.

they are not content "owners" though. they have a a copyright that regulates who can copy and distribute that data. they don't have a say how that content is used when acquired legally as long as you activity doesn't constitute a distribution.

and 99% of the people will learn the ? shortcut in fraction second. it's just like every other operator ffs. are you dumbfounded everytime you see the channel operators (->) ? noone takes a second thought to them after the first couple of seconds when they encounter them the first time.

He was suing to remove the report from google results so FUTURE employers do not find it. so yes, the effect mattered to him. now even if he wins that case there will be dozens others that have reported this and will be impossible to remove them all.

the keyword being _phone_, not smartphone. Bambulab too will let you print from SD card without logging in their infra, they are just locking the rest of the ecosystem. 1 to 1 analogy.

the question is whether that 25% jump is also because of the compromised first test.

that applies specifically to this artificial problem google created to be hard for classical computers and in fact in the end it turned out it was not so much. IBM came up with a method to do what google said it would take 10.000 years on a classical computers in just 2 days. I would not be surprised if a similar reduction happened also to their second attempt if anyone was motivated enough to look at it.

In general we have thousands of optimisations problems that are hard to solve but immediate to verify.

This doesn't explain the legalese in Civil case juridistictions which almost all of Europe is. There is no case that can change whether something is legal or not. My pet theory is legalese is just to sound different, authoretative and if we want to go into conspiracy theories, than it is to make sure that lay people will need you even for the simple cases.

she was right the first time when they announced this in 2019 and this time even they admit in their own press release:

> Of course, as happened after we announced the first beyond-classical computation in 2019, we expect classical computers to keep improving on this benchmark

As IBM showed their estimate of classical computer time is taken out of their a**es.

the most basic example was the declined proposal https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/32437-...

Some people didn't like the "try" keyword it reminded them too much of exceptions, some people didn't like that they couldnt see a return inline (which was the purpose of the proposal in the first place).

it's not that there are no solutions. the main problem is the go team's insistence to have "one true way" (tm) of doing something and unfortunately this gap between people who want to see every return inline and people who want to see the clean solution separate from the error handling is not something that can be bridged by technical means. the only solution is to implement both ways and lets see which one wins.

this part of error handling is pure religion. it goes even against one of the most basic go tenents. that code should be easy to read not write. Try reading and understanding the logic of a particular method where 75% of the lines are error noise and only 25% are the ones you need to understand what the method does. yes it's noise because whenever read a codebase for the first time you are never interested on the the error edge case. first glance readability needs to tell you what you are trying to accomplish and only after what you are doing to make sure that is correct.

on this point go's error handling is a massive fail. Notice that I'm not saying explicit error handling is bad. I'm saying the insistence that error handling needs to be implemented inline interleaved with the happy path is the problem. You can have explicit error handling in dedicated error handling sections

Those are the same kind of question. take god or the "special" out of the second one and you will see that is only that part that most react against. Noone reacts with the antropic principle to the Fermi's paradox, noone even reacted with it to the simulation hypotheses that in my view is for all intents and purposes the religious one. but only because it did not contain, by Name, the God, it is acceptable.

more likely or less likely has nothing to do with observation indipendece. I flip a weighted coin and it's tails 99% of the time, it's the coin that is weighted it has nothing to do with me. The same thing with the parameters of the universe, the fact that life is present on Earth and not on Mercury (to take an exterme example) is not dependent on the observer being intelligent or even alive. even a non intelligent "aparatus" can detect it. it may not "know" to clasify it as life/not life but it can detect the difference.

Saying that we wouldn't be here to ask the question is not an answer to anything because we are here and we need to understand how and why.

Anthropic principle is the most useless of all and it's used to avoid explanation instead of trying to find one. Imagine Newton answering to why objects fall with "because if they did not we would be asking different questions"... what a great advance for humanity /s

other engineering industries use standards that are good for stability but bad for efficiency and innovation.

> Chess is stateless with perfect information. Unless you're going for mind games, you don't need to remember previous moves.

while it can be played as stateless, remembering previous moves gives you insight into potential strategy that is being build.

not even that. "unexplained matter" implies that there is some matter to explain (what type etc) when in reality is an unexplained observation that could be explained by current laws/constants if only there was some more (actually a lot more) matter. is a pure mathematical construct and mathematically it wold be just as valid to ad "dark constant modifier"

the mechanism is the same (that's why it impacts all weights) but the target of gradient descent is not the same. in finetuning they aren't saying "go down the mountain" anymore, but "go down toward this plateau" ofcourse this changes the gradient.

is it "learning" in a certain sense? sure, the same way like all indoctrinations are sold as "teaching". the model "learned" to be rapresentative but forgot what 1940 nazi soldier was like...

and fine tuning is not a scalable approach because it has human feeback in the loop. could they fix this error with more fine tuning? yes and they tried abut then the users simply asked "give me a picture a viking warriors" and the problems was again there, you can't fine-tune everything even if we assume the purpose is always noble.

fine-tuning is not learning, it's controlling the response and you see it's absurd effects in countless examples where in the name of being politically correct the "weights" have been modified also for the past. (classic example of Gemini's German Nazi "representative" photo or even more: https://art-for-a-change.com/blog/2024/02/gemini-artificial-...)

yes there is. how LLMs "learn" is by training and every new "fact" moves the weights of older learnings. you can not be sure that this movement has not caused past learnings to be forgotten or brought to absurd limits without a full cross training. that is why everyone does training in stages and doesn't just let the models learn gradually daily. for LLMs all "knowledge" is in one big container to be updated all or nothing. Humans on the other hand, learn in different containers. you have your core beliefs that are not touched everytime you read or hear something new, it requires a pretty good shake to make anyone "update" their core beliefs. from there there are several corpuses of knowledge more or less isolated from one-another that may take various amount of "influence" to change but that more or less don't impact each other. for example learning a new foreign vocabulary does not really impact your math knowledge etc.

notice that LLMs "context" chat is not learning, it's a temporary effect that gets lost as soon as the chat closes.