phorkyas82

Every time I forget to append "-ai" or "-ki" to suppress this abomination from appearing, it's a little sting: Oh no! Needless CPU cycle burnt for these haunting loading animations, its symbols and the slop I need to get past really quick, but which again and again plastered into my view.

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury Signifying nothing.

(some drama from good ol' William)

I'd guess the hurdles are always more structural and organizational - as even with Microsoft stack itself. See for instance the Limux/Munic story: https://lwn.net/Articles/737818/

>It's still a ton of effort with dubious payoff.

Isn't that valid for _any_ AI training? Let alone the "frontier stuff".

That'd be so great. No more cursing if I forgot the "-ai" or "-ki" flag in my search and see this odious AI overview processing window rendering slowly and taking up the space where my search results should be.

..just like any other government?

"Just like humans..", was also my first thought.

> frequently escalating to severe misconduct to satisfy KPIs

Bug or feature? - Wouldn't Wallstreet like that?

Don't forget that gcc is in the training set.

That's what always puts me off: when AI replaces artists, SO and FOSS projects, it can only feed into itself and deteriorate..

That's why there is separation of powers or ought to be.

I always had this: "Only dead software needs no maintenance" in the back of my head, and similarly "bug free only means it's not been used and vetted enough"

While probing into this, I think there could be a case where software is mostly done: when it is shipped with the hardware and run in an isolated environment.

The mentioned tools are probably not distributed in binary form for different OS, I assume, otherwise that statement _cannot_ be true.

> failing to to finish software indicates a badly defined scope. In my first job there'd even been a contractual penalty if you are not done in time. And this company produced examples of "finished" software, that controlled warehouse material flow, sometimes running on 20 yrs old MCU. (which of course meant they could not extract money of these customers, because the software ran too good)

Slightly moving into the other direction, after 17 years of science and tech optimism I see myself turning into a Luddite more and more. First observation was that communication and social aspects of software seems crucial for success and proliferation. And next came: that technology seems inept to solve any socio-econimic problems, but rather aggravates them.

Isn't that what no LLM can provide: being free of hallucinations?

Second that. I see that as a failure of society or democracy as a whole - that we are no longer able to have that broad, public conversation and act accordingly. Why should every "innovation" be shoved down our throats, if we don't want to?

Uff, dunno where to start even: I think as a transcendent number π cannot have a finite expansion like 10 in any base, then it would be rational. But that is not so important. I think in your argumentation you are mixing to things.

The finiteness of everything, our world and the universe: That was also something that struck me, and made me disbelief in God which is said to be infinite and perfect. It's an undeniable observation - see also how Aristotle was to deny the existence of actual infinity and only allow potential infinity, which was only lately challenged by Cantor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_and_potential_infinity) You seem to use this as an argument, that our mental world is.. infinitely more than our physical. So you advocate some kind of dualism and claim that LLM never will have access to our mental world?

Idk, this "mental world", amazing as it is, is clearly powered by our physical body.

Some human attempts: "Why did the sun climb a tree?" "Because it was chased by the Great Bear."

"Why did The Sun climb a tree?" "To spy on The Royal Family having picnic."

Well, I wouldn't entrust critical infrastructure to the private sector which.. blindly optimizes shareholder value and sells your data anywhere. Germany's train privatization also comes to mind,.. or US healthcare - worse service for more money.

Generally, it's inter-subjectively decided what art is, which works enter the canon and are passed on. Placing it solely in each individual, "it's only a matter of taste", falls a bit short of some centuries of aesthetic theory.

Also, AI is maybe only the last straw as Silicon Valley and the digital sphere was already "transforming" the creative industry, cp this piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-dea...

As far as I understood any AI model is just a linear combination of its training data. Even if that were such a large corpus as the entire web... it's still just like a sophisticated compression of other's people's expressions.

It has not made its own experiences, not interacted with the outer world. Dunno, I won't to rule out something operating solely on language artifacts cannot develop intelligence or consciousness, whatever that is,.. but so far there are also enough humans we could care about and invest into.

If you want to use non standard fonts, I think, you should use XeLaTex to compile your file. After installing the font in the system, this just worked on my Ubuntu:

\usepackage{mathspec} \setallmainfonts(Digits,Latin){Old Timey Mono}

\begin{document}

Just test some equation \begin{equation} \frac{e^x}{2-x} = \int_0^\infty f(x)dx \end{equation}

\end{document}

The biggest pain I remember was placement of figures. I think the [h] parameter would advise to place the graphic right "here", but even if added the exclamation mark for extra force, it would often wind up somewhere else.

Like when our chess trainer could not put six diagrams on one page with latex, s.th. that is very feasible with typst (https://github.com/Phorkyas/typst-samples/tree/main/chess)

It's like the blaming in a playground fight; who started first? For context: https://nitter.net/KushDesai47/status/1907618136444067901

> $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt

deal was reported: Monday, December 16, 2019

Just like a programmer complaining about some atrociously bad code only to learn she has committed it herself.

That was still operated 20 years ago: https://www.hnf.de/en/permanent-exhibition/exhibition-areas/...

Well, the learnedness as typist is probably not so much of a factor if you consider the setup:

   (b) type the presented word using the right index finger on the keyboard.

That's really one thing that threw me off, when I stumbled upon it: How is this realistic typing?.. Sounds almost like comparing a flute and a piano and concluding the superiority of the former, because the pianist had to play only using one finger at a time?

Not a very recent one, but this "Kingdom of nouns" resonates deeply http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...

So.. the metaverse shall be written in Verse? - Would Shakespeare approve or die in disambiguity?

Somehow the code is not linked in the blog posts, but it seems to be there: https://github.com/objective-see?tab=repositories

I think, that's a common misconception about randomness: It doesn't mean the number has to change with every roll of dice. On the contrary the longer the sequence large clusters of the same number will occur.

It's maybe not so counter-intuitive as the Birthday paradox, but maybe already showing how bad our intuition is at grasping randomness. Initially I had hoped about research on that, which is probably very hard. - Or not? Couldn't you look at the n-gram distributions of the data and look how much that is "random", i.e. are people avoiding clusters harder than they should?

This is truly terrifying.

Count me in, too. For me it is really easier to parse ≥ than ">=", where I might even get confused about the order of the symbols. Seems more succinct and close the mathematical expression it embodies.