thanks, somehow have used this and also been working in a11y and didnt put 2 and 2 together that its the same tech
258 karma · joined September 20, 2021
any examples come to mind?
> One of the biggest issues with symbols is that, to a human, matching parentheses is relatively easy, but the models struggle with it.
Great point. I find it near trivial to close parens but llms seem to struggle with the lisps ive played with because of this counting issue. To the point where ive not been working with them as much. typescript and functional js as other commentors note is usually smooth sailing.
cool to check out your version as well thanks for sharing.
Macquer gave him (the alchemist noted in OP article) formal credit in his textbook, writing that “the phosphorus here described was first discovered by a citizen of Hamburgh named Brandt, who worked upon urine in search of the Philosopher’s stone.” [1]
Of course i found this hilarious, but its a prime example of serendipity. [2]
[1] https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/hennig-brand...
From skimming the log > After popping the 2, the stack is [X11, then pushing X2 would make it [X2, X1]? No, because pushing adds to the top. So after popping 2, the stack is [X1],then pushing X2 adds it on top → [X2, X1].
Wait, no, when you push, you add to the top. So after popping the 2, the stack is [X1], then pushing X2 would make it [X2, X1]? No, wait, the stack is LIFO. So pushing X2 would put it on top of X1 → stack becomes [X2, X1]? No, no. Wait, after popping the 2, the stack is [X1]. Then pushing X2 would make the stack [X2, X1]? No, no. Wait, when you push, the new element is added to the top. So after popping the 2 (so stack is [X1]), then pushing X2 gives [X2, X1]? No, no. Wait, the stack was [X1], then pushing X2 would make it [X2] on top of X1 → so stack is [X2, X1]? Yes, exactly.
As for the tuning system, we didnt get great demo recordings of it, but the invisible strings were linearly mapped as a range onto degrees of a given scale. In our use-case (letting people with disabilities jam without too much dissonance) that key+scale and the master tempo were broadcast to each instrument.
Would have been interesting to play more with custom tunings, but the users we were designing for would have had a harder time using it consonantly. FWIW fully-abled folks like myself sound pretty bad on the theremin, and seeing people play them in orchestras etc displays an impressive level of "virtuosity" to place the hands properly. Quantizing the range of possible positions helps but the tradeoff is sacrificing expressivity.
As for 1) yes, there will definitely be some pitfalls with the relatively slow updates - which may show up as "zipper noise" artifacts in output.
For 2), logarithmic mapping between position and pitch is traditionally theremin-like, but as the theremin avoids zippering by being analog, youll have to get creative with some smoothing/lerping and potentially further quantization. Thats the fun and creative bit though!
Would love to hear about your project again and what approaches you take, and happy to answer other q's so feel free to drop me a line.
..."Youre absolutely right! I did mess up the internals of that feature and incorrectly reported that it works. let me try again..."
> I don't think there's a reason to assume that boys are encouraged to play with building toys and games, rather than innately choosing to do this to the exclusion of other types of play - certainly it's as likely to be innately biological as being good at 3-D rotation itself is.
Interesting take. I faced abusive repercussion in daycare for playing with the cooking set and dolls because “those aren’t my toys and it’s wrong”, so while I was inclined to think this was very much socially enforced dimorphism, your comment seems to suggest that I am in some way more “biologically feminine” than most skeptics would like to suggest. curious !
As for us being overrepresented in tech, for a lot of gals I know it’s a way for our merit to be judged over our appearance, similar to socially awkward guys preferring work that doesn’t take constant face-to-face.
I’ve seen most of the frontier models hallucinate their capabilities, not surprising they might do so for api completions regarding a product they barely know about.
Unless they lose more money from cancelled subscriptions than they saved on cutting support staff, it’s probably the new normal.
OPs project looks like a cool way for plugin devs to make a demo slider.
When doling bad docs to a stupid robot, you only have yourself to blame for the bad docs. So I think it’s #2 + #3. The big change is replacability going from bad to desirable (replace yourself with agents before you are replaced with a cheaper seat)
Do you find you generally get a well reasoned outcome or do you also find the model stretching to come up with a take that aligns with your skepticism?
Haeberli used a simple simulation of Hookes law, Where F=-kx F is the force applied to the spring. k is spring constant or stiffness. x is extension distance.
DynaDraw also added damping IIRC
Thx for the links
I think people are suggesting : Use a readymade renderer > use readymade OCR pipelines/apis > run it on pdfs
A colleague uses a document scanner to create a pdf of a document and sends it to you
You must return the data represented in it retaining as much structure as possible
How would you proceed? Return just the metadata of when the scan was made and how?
Genuinely wondering