AI is trained off a massive corpus of internet exchanges. If you tell people youre going to thoroughly inspect their work or are able to check if theyre right, only people with high confidence will respond. I imagine exchanges where the OP is more involved in fact checking have a higher proportion of thoughtful and honest answers.
That would honestly be an incredible performance art piece, like a distilled waste of a human life just to prove a point. Then even after all that you could ask the question "Is the art inferior, did it prove the point effectively.". I think there's a real argument to be made that it didn't, becuase just having the argument surfaces some very interesting points about worth.
Obviously people know, but theres no impulse to introspect on why or how. Knowing that someone else knows you had a hard braking event taps in to our social brains to provide a much stronger response to the event. When we know people are watching we're more likely to try and justify our behaviour.
In the current social climate I would absolutely not trust public media to understand general consensus. Ask specific people you trust or seek out their opinions.
If the 16 performs worse in the power efficiency department, that is not great, but it doesnt make my machine run any worse. Calling it heavy is crazy to me, the thing is tiny. If you think it's heavy you'd have trouble using an iPad. The screen thing was a shitty manufacturing issue, they released a kit to fix it, which I luckily didnt need since mine came after they fixed it in production.
None of the shadows you can physically see in the photos have 0 area because the construction of the fractal isn't perfect. What a perfect construction would look like and if it's ever theoretically possible to make physical are complicated questions. Beyond me for sure, how would an infinitely thin object even interact with light?
I would assume the problem with the idea is in the fractal physics rather than the definition of area, which has been solidly useful for me.
Belief is not binary and can change with new evidence. You may believe it is likely someone is innocent, but should still witness all the evidence to update your beliefs. In the rare case that there is concrete and infallible evidence that the accused IS innocent, they are typically not prosecuted, or it wraps up very quickly.
Considering they provided multiple references to exactly what they were talking about, what gave you issues? They're not talking about what you linked, and they are talking about what they linked.
So all forms of communication then? What is the end goal here, present your driver's licence and submit your comment to a Truth Verification Panel to be approved for distribution?
Its all anecdotal all the way down, so here's another grain of salt to add to the pile.
(Calories in - calories out) is correct enough to be the single most reliable metric, and will serve you right 99% of the time. My "one level deeper" understanding is that there are a few transfer functions applied to calories in. So of the technically available calories you eat, how much does your body absorb. Then, when the calories are biologically available, how does your body spend them?
So the idea would be, if you eat the pizza at the right time you reduce calories in. Either you will digest less calories, or your body will allocated them differently at different times of the day.
Unfortunately these things aren't really measurable so it's very hard to separate from hearsay.
Not likely without other contributing technologies. These devices just move heat from one side to the other, at the cost of producing more heat. So you still have to dissipate even more heat on the hot end with a fan/heatsink, in addition to draining the battery running the Peltier.
I like this litmus test generally, but I think it applies mostly to self aggrandizing behaviour. "Most people are dumber than a threshold I consider intelligent" kind of vibe. I do think humans are stupid though, as in all of us, including myself and people I like. We just sometimes make terrible choices despite our best intentions, and by a strict definition that's pretty stupid.
I really don't think learning to rely on these tools for product review is a good idea. The web shows how much gravity the advertising industry has. As soon as the number of people using llms like this become statistically significant, you can bet product placement will find its way into the training data. Betting on enshittification is easy money.
Everyone is an ideologue. What _is_ is too complicated to fit in a human brain, so we compress it. Thinking you're a free thinker is a type of ideology you can subscribe to.
Right, my complaint is that it only works like jargon, where you are just giving something a context-specific nickname. As a word shortening scheme, it's terrible. A world where many projects have names like s11g is a nightmare.
_#_ has to be one of the worst word shortening schemes I've ever seen get widespread. It only works with a very small number of long-lived technologies, in which case they basically just get a nickname, "k8s" "i18n". It does not at all work for larger contexts. You're basically making someone solve a crossword (2 across, 10 letters with two filled in) just to parse your sentence.
Nice work! I like that you put lots of examples in the readme for people to get an idea of the engine right away. It looks great and I hope you enjoyed building it!
Thanks for the link to the Rodrigues form, that's quite interesting. Slightly confused by your comment though, shouldn't the matrix logarithm produce another matrix?
I think there's a lot more information in this one. Before I decide if I want to click or not, I know it's about Yann Lecun and LLMs at least. Where as Please Stop Talking About AGI could get me anything from Roko's Basilisk to a PSA.
I think the way it was handled is pretty reasonable considering it's a public facing statement. Putting your name down on an authoritative statement is an important commitment internally, but a name put down for any reason on a public statement is a magnet for a firehose of questions, controversy, and potentially harrassment.