youssefabdelm

Thanks for the correction! I haven't looked as deeply into J but now also curious to learn more. So many new and interesting terms to look up, thank you!

I agree maybe a little bit of variable and function naming is fine in some cases.

Oh! Thanks so much for the correction. I was sure my memory would fail me here. That's a great point too with naming. In cases like this it makes a lot of sense. There are many cases I'm thinking of where people sometimes have long function names that do lots of stuff so you're not quite sure what the implementation is like.

I think APL is very beautiful as someone who has longed to learn it from afar and not yet had the time, would be very curious to get more insight into how it changes the way you approach problems in both APL and programming in general, and how it gets you to think differently.

If I recall correctly, the Dyalog branch of APL allows for variable names? I kind of like the idea of zero variable names and all strange symbols. The reasoning that after you learn those, you can read any program and understand what's going on at every step, without needing to check what each function actually does -- that sounded very intriguing to me.

And the reason that "checks out" (or may) I guess is that the language's primitives are very carefully chosen such that you have a kind of extreme economy of "words" - so your LOCs will be so low such that you may not need to abstract lines into mysterious function names to reduce the number of lines a person has to read to understand what a program does. Aka the economy of words more than compensates for the lack of abstraction.

What method do you use to cluster? HDBSCAN?

I wish it were a little more random in a sense... just enough so that the brain doesn't get "bored" of the evolution of the pattern, but not too much randomness that the randomness itself becomes like white noise (yet another pattern the brain can get "bored" of)

Would be extremely curious if patterns like the one described exist in math.

I also get the sense that OP has not read enough general semantics to recognize that what seem like "edge cases" not covered by general semantics are actually touched upon frequently across the discipline's key people, at least (seemingly to me) hinted at in many cases if we're only considering Korzybski (e.g. structural differential / idea of layers of abstraction)... but I could be wrong.

Maybe OP is trying hard to express a not yet fully formed nuanced and new idea that was sort of at the subconscious level, and we are just struggling to understand.

That's awesome! thanks!

What's the speed like? How many tokens per second? / Is it as fast as say ChatGPT?

How does it bring into question his motives? Did he say anything contradictory in this post? He did say it happened recently, but 5 months is still recent -- He may have simply been reminded of the pain of that experience recently

Nobody has done this well enough yet. What's required:

1. Transcribe your speech using Whisper (in that case you don't have to make an effort to speak clearly so long as you're in a relatively quiet room)

2. Get a TTS system that actually sounds good (e.g. Descript, Eleven Labs, etc.)

3. Have RAPID responses like a normal human conversation (mostly on OpenAI's side... so hopefully ChatGPT Plus fixes that)

The nearest thing I've come across btw is Aspen: https://github.com/thepeergroup/aspen

Though does not seem to be in active development, and not quite as simple.

I'm currently in the middle of creating a user-contributed site that I think will benefit from "schemas" (or just organization / "cleanliness" in general)... as a COMPLETE beginner who's very concerned about this issue (I really don't want my data to turn into a mess)...

1. what resources would you recommend?

2. Is there a "gold standard"?

Article already mentioned some great terms to look up and explore.

Should be top comment.

Outrage is way too overkill.

ELI5 buffer overflow and how it helps?

No worries haha, not at all easy nor cheap to build these things. I'm sure it's useful in most cases.

I tried using the playground code completion to ask it to write a script for pyautocad that colors in a grid, it completed with a different library, pyautogui. Even after saying "import pyautocad" myself, the function it completed was pyautogui.

I'm sure it's prob still very useful for people who care about the privacy tradeoff, but I've had more success with ChatGPT

So is the new Codex model not available for individuals? That's what they seem to imply in the blog announcement but thats not a difference they highlight on their landing page between the two plans.

Probably by hearing, touch, etc. - my point is some stimulus from reality, doesn't have to be any of our senses, just some stimulus.

And the more stimuli, and the more high resolution and detailed (say at the atomic level), the more GPT's model of reality would be accurate.

Language is just symbols that stand for a stimulus (in the best case)

I get what you mean here but they probably mean referential meaning... having never seen a dog, GPT doesn't really know what a dog is on a physical level, just how that word relates to other words.

It's great but man... wish the design looked better. Someone from Atom or Arc should make it look a little nicer

> They’d never feel overworked nor underworked, and there’d be no idle time.

Haha... the thought of someone being 'underworked'

ChatGPT....

The next stage: you guys carefully curate a gigantic list of extremely high quality agents and I dont have to make any agents for my specific use case.

Stage after that: GPT, or some other AI constantly adapts / curates the agents for me based on my notes, conversations, etc. (Although a privacy nightmare)

Can someone who knows something about the sun tell us... if this is cause for concern? (Not that we can really do anything about it lol)

You forgot the most important part: his net worth is $3.8 BILLION with a big fat juicy B

This would be nice if the CEO was not the founder, but in this case, he's the founder and his net worth is $3.8B.

> Also, saying “science calls BS” is incredibly reductionist. Science can say whatever it wants, but that doesn’t change that myself and many others engage in activities regularly that they do not enjoy to achieve ends that they value.

That's fair. "Science might raise an eyebrow at this but it could still be wrong" may have been closer to the truth.

> That's an extreme watering down of a complex topic.

Fair point.

A person can force themselves... until they break.

So in that sense it needn't be fun as long as you can finish the task before the breaking point.

But there's a threshold beyond which the person cannot sustain the behavior.

Because it's a form of consistent lying to oneself.

A person's brain, on a moment-to-moment basis is trying to pick the 'optimal' choice. The 'optimal' is: most pleasure, least pain.

If the most pleasure, least pain option is beneficial to you in the long-run, the "game" that we play of trying to convince ourselves to do something else disappears.

Which diet will win in the long run:

1. One that tastes better than all available options (including any takeout, or delivery, ice cream, or restaurant you know of)

2. One that tastes worse

My critique is with this flawed concept of "discipline" which to my mind translates to "forcing yourself" aka "lying to yourself for as long as possible"

Science calls BS: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014616721667648...

If the day-to-day isn't fun, it'll never get done.

For those who have come across this thread, and don't just want to read the whining folks, some things that come close:

- O’Shaughnessy Fellowships: https://www.osv.llc/oshaughnessy-fellowships

- Arvo Part Residency: https://www.arvopart.ee/en/residency/

I welcome more examples...