d-lisp

I second this; I have never been "into" these problematics and as a user I generally just disallow everything I can, which can be a pain (I mean I do want to often don't store anything when I'm browsing the web, which leads to meeting a lot of "cookie banners"). While there are probably browser extensions that can perform the automatic opt-out, it would be nice if browsers provided an API as an unified and centralized way to communicate consentment as a set of privilege access to different browser features and APIs (you could e.g. forbid the use of canvas, or even JS entirely).

But that's only a small part of a huge legal frame, and as I said I don't know much about these problematics.

Are they multiplying a 3x3 matrix by a 2 component vector ?

I do know for sure that I am able to share my intelligence with anyone. Moreover I do enjoy it. I cannot conceive a lot of things more pleasant than making people smart. And to me that should be your responsibility to do so, as a gifted person.

You should cease to complain about other people being dumb, and just work on being understandable by anyone. That's a very complex job, as it may lead to what I'd call "extravagant analysis" (i.e. unfolding abstractions to the point you reach atoms or "implementations", [note, I do remember of a (joke) book titled "How to ride a bike" where the author explained literally everything you needed to know to be able to ride a bike, to the point it became absurd]).

Anyway, you should at least try it. Smart people often are terrible at explaining stuff because they don't need to do the work of diving into the atoms of abstractions, and because sometimes also language is not their primary tool to think about things.

Tldr; are you sure you are understandable ?

I found chatGPT to be bad at VimGolfing.

``` Here is a 35 keystrokes solution that beat your 36 keystrokes solution ! <89 keystrokes> ```

And then it keeps looping in the same way if you ask it about the seahorse emoji (or sometimes just lie about the keystrokes number).

In fact that's not surprising, what is rather surprising is that some of the solutions actually work (>= 100 keystrokes)

Well, there are people that cannot see.

Fortunately, there are solutions.

I want to add that I think you are missing my argument here. Devices that allow you to speak without speaking shall soon be available to us [0].

The important aspect of my position is to think about the relevance of "applications" and "programs" in the age of AI, and, as an exaggeration of what is shown in that post, I was wondering if in the end, UI is not bound to disappear.

[0] https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/alterego/overview/

I did that in the past, without a chatbot. Plain text search is really powerful.

Well, if you have a terminal emulator, a database, a voice recognition software, a LLM wrapped in such a way that it can interact with the other elements, you obtain a ressembling stack.

I must be really dumb because I enjoy producing music, programming, drawing for the sake of it, and not necessarily for creating viable products.

Maybe you don't even need a list if you can describe what you want or able to explain why the article you are currently viewing is not a match.

As for repetitive tasks, you can just explain to your computer a "common procedure" ?

Maybe I should have rephrased everything with : " Make me happy"

"Make me happy"

"Make me happy"

"Make me happy"

I cannot speculate about this, because I am not sure too observe the same.

Why would you need webapps when you could just talk out loud to your computer ?

Why would I need programs with colors, buttons, actual UI ?

I am trying to imagine a future where file navigators don't even exist : "I want to see the photos I took while I was in vacations last year. Yes, can you remove that cloud ? Perfect, now send it to XXXX's computer and say something nice."

"Can you set some timers for my sport session, can you plan a pure body weight session ? Yes, that's perfect. Wait, actually, remove the jumping jacks."

"Can you produce a detroit style techno beat I feel like I want to dance."

"I feel life is pointless without a work, can you give me some tasks to achieve that would give me a feeling of fulfillment ?"

"Can you play an arcade style video game for me ?"

"Can you find me a mate for tonight ? Yes, I prefer black haired persons."

Can "but also" be a convoluted form of "and" ?

Basic engineering skills (frontend development, python, even some kind of high level 3d programming) are covered. If you do C/C++, or even Java in a preexisting project then you will have a hard time constantly explaining the LLM why <previous answer> is absolute nonsense.

Everytime I tried LLMs, I had the feeling of talking with a ignorant trying to sound VERY CLEVER: terrible mistakes at every line, surrounded with punchlines, rocket emojis and tons of bullshit. (I'm partly kidding).

Maybe there are situations where LLMs are useful e.g. if you can properly delimit and isolate your problem; but when you have to write code that is meant to mess up with the internal of some piece of software then it doesn't do well.

It would be nice to know from each part of the "happy users" and "mecontent usere" of LLMs in what context they experimented with it to be more informed on this question.

Exactly. But also I enjoy experiencing good things more than once and sometimes need that kind of help to be remembered about good things I may have forgotten.

If this isn't cosplay I'd be glad to know how you do so.

Incrementation ?

I believe in UML usefulness as a whiteboard/blackboard language. A fun way to explain what you need or what you imagine to be a good architecture, but that's all, it's a drafting tool. But then, why not using it as a communication tool ? You would draft something on the board, the LLM would generate the program. Sometimes it is simpler to draw 5 rectangles, name then and show their relationships in UML class modeling than to explain it textually.

That is not what is implied here, OP seems to dislike the speech aesthetics produced by the model. I feel the same; the sugar-coating provided before and after any actual valuable information is (to me) : - not succeeding in awkwardly trying to achieve an experience that would be comparable to talking with a human person - not efficient, not enjoyable - perfectly matching the experience of talking with an highly standardized and gimmicky version of human_v0.01.

Now, that being said, I don't really care about all of this.

The USA population is equivalent to approximately 4% of the total world population.

If html is a markup language and mardown a ... mardown language, then org is all of this and much more. I wish there was an org-mode for everything non-textual, as org-mode solves the textual part of my life quite well.

I feel I am in a perpetual day-dream; hence space and time go unnoticed by my "brain".

Logical articulation, -and I don't know why- resonnates perfectly with my state of mind. If the "memory task" can be represented as a tree or axioms and theorems, then it feels like I already know it by heart (the information is compressed and can be developped from a small piece of information, be it a formula or a fact).

The weirdest is that some aesthetical ability in my brain allow me, through some kind of hallucination (There's no other word) to perceive logical articulation where it doesn't exist: I can remember phone numbers only because I see a "discourse" or articulation in them, when truly that's plainly wrong.

I also noticed I was much more "affected" by signs that weren't part of the road signalization when driving, and sometimes I know where a graffiti is, for example, better than I know which of the next two village is the nearest. (But at least I make people laugh).

I am amazed by my wife that is able to travel a whole country knowing almost exactly which town and village we will go through without looking at a map, while telling me about the names of the different mountains, hills and vegetal species around us (??????).

I always had 19.5/20 at school no matter the subject, if the subject involved logic and even if I didn't learn anything. On the other part, my grades in other subjects such as history were much more "ordinary". I skimmed through the academic part of my life without paying any attention to what the teachers were telling, drawing stuff in a notebook.

On the other hand, I cannot remember simple things such as where to go to <enter the name of a place> and I often have to wander and explore when I ride my car ...

Also, if you ask me what I did yesterday, it is highly probable that I won't be able to tell.

Also, I never know what day of the week we are, and sometimes I don't even know what month we are.

For every other aspect, learning new things is like learning things I already know.

Jokes apart, Will it be ?

I wonder how the world and humans will adapt to this. For now, the capitalistic pressure at least urges people to maintain services, I wonder how this will translate in a future where having a property (landmines, factory, farm, ...) and allowing it to be exploited are the only forms of professionalism.

I am afraid of the lust for power people seems to suffer from. Aren't there humans that would be glad to be winners among losers ? Why would these people share their valuable assets for free with anyone ?

    1. build something noone can live without.
    2. it already exists : market is too competitive
  

You have to build something that doesn't exist and which would be still considered as almost vital.

I cannot help with the fact that it sounds like a bad strategy to claim this is a good reason "not to worry" about something. If I were "OpenAI" I would rather read the content than evaluate the form of such articles to know if I should "worry" or not. It seems like the most Inteiligent method.

True, then it doesn't differ from Kuratowski's encoding or am I missing something ?

It always felt arbitrary to me :

    next(x)={x} would give 

    1={0}
    2={{0}}
    3={{{0}}}

    Kuratowski's encoding gives :
    0=Ø=()
    1={Ø}=(0)
    2={Ø,{Ø}}=(0,1)
    3={Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}=(0,1,2)
    
    The cardinal of N is n and
    every element in N are the predecessors of n.

    Von Neuman's encoding gives :
    0=Ø
    1=0U{0}={Ø,{Ø}}
    2=1U{1}={Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}
   
    Now the cardinal of N is n+1, and n is the maximum
    of the set N defining n.

    Both Von Neuman's and Kuratowski's encoding allows us to define ordered tuples, but I cannot understand how to write the tuples for Von Neuman's in the context of natural numbers.

2 is {Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}} with Von Neuman's we can recognize 0 and 1 as the first and second element of the tuple : what is the third one ?

If you give me an array of thousands of adds that would match the target, I could lazy load the add and refresh them once they finish.

I disliked the way this article is written, it reminds me of "we had to rollback to the previous UI because the new one was too efficient that people spent less time on the website".

Another instance of me is a different instance of me than I am, thus it isn't me.