15,493 karma · joined January 22, 2011
But because "bullshitting" has some sorta agency behind it, while "hallucinating" is a thing that happens to you, I still lean toward the latter. But even better are the other replies that suggest "confabulation."
"Hallucination" just sounds so nicely dystopian as we start to think about our coming AI overlords.
Hallucinating means the LLM really "thinks" that you can use PVA glue in a pizza recipe. It's not trying to screw you over. It's just that the token generator has found a weird path through the training set. (I'm sure I didn't word that last sentence correctly)
I think "hallucinate" is a spot-on description of what's happening under the hood.
(Or, that's what the scumbags told themselves, I'm sure)
I think the only thing that outdoes this is the Santa Claus commercial that would play the DTMF tones for the kids who didn't know how to dial a phone. I can't find an example now, but I've seen it before, and Wikipedia has a reference to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium-rate_telephone_number#...
So the km:mi ratio is somewhere between 60:100 and 66:100. I choose whichever one makes sense depending on the number in front of me.
Yes, this means both 90 and 100 km/h both covert to 60mph. Close enough!
"Post-9/11" began minutes after the first planes found their targets. Flight 93—the one that crashed in Pennsylvania—never made it because the passengers revolted after hearing about the other planes.
It only took a few minutes for the calculus to change. Knowing what was up, those passengers flipped from wait-and-see mode to fuck-you mode. This is pretty good evidence that you're right: the biggest increase in security was and still is that passengers will not be meek anymore.
That’s neutral. You host sites, regardless of their content.
If EPA says you can't build a dam or otherwise alter the watershed that overlaps your land, they have a clear rationale for that regulation that goes beyond "protecting the charm and character" of a particular neighborhood.
Just overturning the decision that says occupancy density is itself a police power would be narrow enough to ease building restrictions while not blowing the EPA away.
This sounds fun. Thanks.
Same goes for the 9s or 10s. If it's an area I've truly mastered, then that 9/10 becomes a good starting point for discussion in an area I'm really confident in.
So the question becomes: "7, 8, or 9?"
Still some strategy to think about here. If you answer "7", then you're saying, "I'm not that good but even I know not to answer lower than 7". Answering "9" is similar, except you're saying you know better than to go full self-aggrandizement.
Yup. Nothing of value is gleaned from this question.
> This includes things like a ... sudden lane change exposing a stopped car.
Oooh, this one has almost gotten me a couple of times. I'm much more defensive now, and when I see a car ahead changing lanes, I assume they're dodging a block wall with orphans sitting on top.
Basically, leave enough distance in front of you so even if the car you're following magically freezes in place, you have enough time to react, and still enough time after reaction to actually stop. In the real world this can be difficult to maintain. The amount of space will invite interlopers. In those situations, follow a car that you can see past, and look at more than just the car you're following.
What does that even mean? If we're rejecting the notion of an irrational, then the statement, "some infinitesimal amount" might as well be "some gorkly boggleboop".
Sure, we can approximate to whatever precision is required for building a wall or calculating an orbit, but math itself would be hobbled by trying to make discoveries with the handicap of only allowing rationals.
> given that right isosceles triangles do exist in reality and their hypotenuse has a definite length?
I might be agreeing with you in a sideways manner, but right isosceles triangles don't exist in reality. Nor do any of the simple shapes like squares and circles. We have physical things that approximate those ideal shapes, but even the most precise triangle will not have a perfect right or 45 deg angle. Nor will the real-world hypotenuse be precisely sqrt(2). These physical items are made of a countable amount of molecules each of which is in some quantized state. Hell, the length of each side of the most perfect triangle we can make will be in constant flux.
So for practical everyday purposes, sure. We can't work directly with irrationals, and there's no need to. But for making new discoveries in math, we must work out how to deal with "weird new" classes of numbers, like 0, or the negatives, or the complex, etc.
Each one of those classes of numbers has survived because it has proven useful. If you can identify the "something wrong with how we think about this issue", you would probably win a big old prize for that :)
We’re all up against the wall during this ascent!
But, like, really often and for a different deal each time. One week they may be at the full price, then the next it's "3 for $10.99 (Must buy multiples of 3)", then it'll be "$3.00 off when you buy two", then back to the crazy price.
It's annoying as hell, and all I can guess is that they're segmenting the market across time. The bargain hunters will wait for the sale and stock up (me), the normies will just put it in their cart each week without looking at the price.
But it's been this way for many years. Only in the last couple have I seen the craziness that is $10 for a 12-pack. It used to be ungodly expensive when I saw a 12-pack for $6.99.
So they've been doing this game for a while, and upped the limit when inflation provided cover.
> ...that hope to deliver broadcast quality programming over the Internet--the holy grail for nascent video-on-demand (VOD) services
What year did we all suddenly stop using the term "video-on-demand" and start saying "streaming"? I don't remember it happening, but obviously it did.
Well at least "broadcast quality" still means the same thing. An ancient antenna on my roof can still kick Youtube's ass when it comes to clarity and resolution.
Nature gave us eyes. We invented telescopes and microscopes.
Natural selection “only” does the bare minimum that beats the competition. It didn’t design plants to be maximally efficient at removing CO2. Plants do so while also having to deal with respiration, water conservation, heat management, reproduction, nutrient intake, disease prevention, etc.
I’m sure we can do better when we don’t concern ourselves with all that other stuff.
If I could just set the alert to something different and minimal, I'd let it run. Bonus if the alert could be one thing for the first message sent, and a simpler thing for the ongoing chatter.
I've always assumed that the cost to build desalination plants along the coast would be peanuts compared to the costs of letting our water supplies dry up and force a mass migration of tens of millions of people. It won't exactly be cheap, but a lot cheaper than the alternative.
EDIT: When I say “over” and “under” above, I’m referring to the technique RedNifre linked to in the sibling comment.
Having the axis on top implies that the values are negative. Like an ocean depth chart.
I never got around to modifying the data on mag stripe. I just dragged a hard-drive magnet over it until it didn’t scan at all.
My takeaway from all that? The hologram that was used to strengthen the official IDs had an unintended side effect of making the fakes easier to believe.
(Or, we have no reason to believe other intelligent life is any more or any less flawed as we may be)