Tungsten also shatters. It doesn’t crush. That’s actually how a tungsten ring that’s stuck is removed. You break it with a vice.
13,205 karma · joined May 30, 2007
A tungsten band is a lot harder than a gold band. But a gold band is already way harder than your flesh. Jimmy Fallon was wearing a traditional platinum band when he nearly lost his finger.
If you want to reduce your risk, you should either not wear a ring or wear a silicone band.
Modern smartphones won’t be supplanted by tech that could just run on a phone. That doesn’t make any sense. For any new tech to take off and replace phones, it has to provide something that isn’t simply additive to the phone. Otherwise, it just makes more sense to build it into the existing phone.
“A phone, but it has AI and no apps” isn’t even additive. It’s purely a loss of functionality.
HardFlow seems to be a strategy for nudging the model in the right direction while giving it more freedom. Only applying the constraints at the end is a mischaracterization from what I can tell.
Did they ever say that? I have trouble imagining any exec at Nike plan for passing savings onto consumers.
I totally see why they thought the strategy was a hit but hindsight is 20/20 and it seems now that this was a correlation and causation mixup. They should have been asking why they were losing mindshare to their competition instead of asking how they could wring more profit out of the same customer base.
This is in style now. My tween daughter and her peers all own shoes that look geriatric to my eyes. I see teenagers walking around in New Balance shoes that look like my dad would have owned them 20 years ago.
I’m working from a place where my employer pays for my tokens so I’m also not spending anything except my time. Maybe if I were, it would feel more like gambling.
> In what way was amazing no-traffic "a reward"? What system was rewarding you for what change in behaviour?
What does this mean? Are you asking me to describe the dopamine system or are you implying that rewards have to be driven by some external system’s goal?
I understand the joy of success but I fail to see how this is gambling. I could have an equivalent conversation with a friend (more likely about a movie in trying to remember than a painting, but still) and get the exact same type of iterative “no, not that one, it was more like X” and feel elated when my friend finally realizes I’m taking about a scene from Hot Tub Time Machine.
This isn’t gambling in any meaningful sense.
Perhaps but predictable outcome is a very desirable quality. No one wants a hammer that sometimes drives nails and sometimes doesn’t. All of the current harness engineering work is about squeezing predictability out of the LLM.
> Good traffic is not a "reward" for driving to work(!)
Like hell it’s not. I drove into work last Friday and there was no traffic because of the holiday weekend. It was amazing. Had me considering whether Friday should be one of my standard RTO days.
How do they use it? Surely no one is just repeating the same prompt over and over (except as a Ralph loop perhaps, which is automated). I’m really struggling with the notion that most people just throw the same prompt repeatedly hoping it eventually works. Because that doesn’t sound like gambling. It sounds crazy (and frustrating).
> and i still feel like the end-psychological reward mechanism is very, very similar to gambling regardless of how well one utilizes it
In the sense that you get a dopamine reward when you succeed, sure, but I get the same reward when I code by hand and achieve a successful result.
> and this is even more obvious with image generation as you chase that perfect output
This is fair, because sometimes with image generation the same exact prompt will produce very different output. This is becoming less true as the models get better and it becomes more effective to direct image generation iteratively than to keep starting from scratch with a barely tweaked prompt.
If you sit at a slot machine and pump quarters into it, each “turn” is independent. You spin and you win or lose. It’s pure chance and there is no destination. You execute the exact same action over and over and hope random chance brings you more money.
If you sit down in front of a coding harness, the progress is incremental and directed. You ask for a thing, the LLM produces something that is hopefully close to what you wanted. You give it more direction to prod it closer to the end state you want. You are not executing the same action, but incrementally nudging it in the right direction. I’ve literally never restarted from the same initial state with the same prompt and hoped for a different result and I don’t know why anyone would. Rarely I’ve thrown away the progress made and started over but always with a very different prompt that includes learnings from the failed attempt.
Everything in life is variable reward. You invite a friend over, they might accept or they might not. Drive to work, traffic might be good or might be bad. You ask a colleague to finish a task, they might do it or might not or might do a good job or might not.
Everything is variable reward. Is everything gambling?
That’s true. Science can’t show a lot of things that aren’t real.
Don’t give them more ideas. Someone will be selling bracelets with batteries in them soon.
This is like saying it’s plausible that wearing a bracelet with a small magnet in it will have health benefits. It’s pure woo. There’s no reason to believe this from a scientific angle. It’s perhaps not impossible but it is certainly not plausible.
> there was a time when fiber in food was reasonably seen as just inefficient waste
When was this?