kilgnad

24 ms·

211.
by kilgnad 4y ago
> I think you are asking me a very emotionally charged and complex question, that I can't really answer over the internet. The internet is the only place I can ask this question. I can't ask this to my gf or friends. Anyway tha
212.
by kilgnad 4y ago
You're talking about a different scenario. I'm talking about continuous inflow and outflow. Where outflow is processing (fixed rate) and inflow is traffic (variable). This is the classic assumption. In this state the space used in
213.
by kilgnad 4y ago
When humans communicate. We don't talk about exceptions where you deliberately choose to operate outside of the norm. If you deliberately choose to drive a car without a seat belt knowing this risk. This is fine. You want to sky dive w
214.
by kilgnad 4y ago
AS I said in the other post I am talking about the average and most likely use case. a flat and continuous rate of data processing and varied rates of data production. Spiking the processing is not what people think about with queues and is
215.
by kilgnad 4y ago
This example suffers from the same problem as the other counter examples. Why are you deliberately slowing down the processing to only happen at 2ms intervals? If you have continuous processing the queue will be empty always assuming proces
216.
by kilgnad 4y ago
My comfort is a measure of business aversion to risk. It depends on the business of our respective industries. Either way you have admitted that you tuned the system to operate with an acceptance of risk. Likely for cost reasons. This is fi
217.
by kilgnad 4y ago
No. That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying on average queues must be empty most of the time. And if you are seeing queues that are filled most of the time, your entire system is operating on the border of failure. This is true ev
218.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Wrong. Your thinking is where the nuance is lacking. As I said you need to think of the system in terms of it's derivative. The rate of data consumed must on average be faster then the production. The net difference of these rates must
219.
by kilgnad 4y ago
He's right. You guys need to see the system in terms of it's derivative. The rate of speed in which data is produced and consumed. This article is saying you basically want an average negative velocity where consumers eat data fas
220.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Wrong. They should. Any queue that fills up, say halfway, is an indication the system is in a precarious state. Its simple. Queues have limited space if the velocity of data going in is faster then data going out the queue will fill up unti
221.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Clearly there's not agreement in what is classified as conscious, given this thread/article. There is general agreement. We agree for most things like rocks and humans..there are a few things where we aren't sure, like ch
222.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Philosophers grapple with the problem the same way Greeks used mythology to grapple with the problem of reality. Thunder is not thrown by some god named Zeus. and the impossibility of a mathematical model describing consciousness cannot be
223.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Personally I think Hofstadter was a bit too enamored with recursion. I don't think it's some marker of consciousness. I'm not saying chatGPT isnt an aspect of consciousness (I don't know).
224.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Unless we reduce models of consciousness to purely stochastic processes, this is trivially false. And no one seriously reduces consciousness to probabilistic pattern recognition. Most things in this universe have mathematical models tha
225.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The consistency arises from the fact that even though we don't know the definition, we are in agreement in what is classified as conscious. We agree that humans are conscious, we agree that rocks are not conscious. This classification
226.
by kilgnad 4y ago
If Hosfadter is correct, then chatGPT already fits that definition. https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/ Read to the ending where it closes the recursive loop.
227.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Completely agreed. There are flaws. But there are times where the output appears that it cannot anything else other then complete understanding of what was given to it as input.
228.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>In defining what it means for a mathematical structure to be of conscious experience, our proposal does not answer the question of what this mathematical structure is. Nothing is answered in this article. We simply don't know. This
229.
by kilgnad 4y ago
You can't say the entire curve is over-fitted. The space is vast and the training data is sparse so given the amount it has to cover, for sure segments of the curve must be over-fitted and other segments of the curve must be more gener
230.
by kilgnad 4y ago
But how do you know? You don't fully understand the mirror. And you don't fully understand yourself. You can't know if you're a mirror yourself.
231.
by kilgnad 4y ago
We aren't even clear about what the difference is between AI and intelligence. These are just loaded words with no clear definition. Given that we don't even fully understand how the human brain works we can't even specify ho
232.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Sports illustrated already laid people off for AI. Artists already created a lawsuit. There's a lot of people over hyping this, but there is an even larger group of people downplaying everything and refusing to believe that a paradigm
233.
by kilgnad 4y ago
What are you talking about. Talking like this is what KEEPS me from getting fired. Are you nuts?
234.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I understand. However, the emphasis of my question is on your current viewpoint of the feminist policies at the workplace. How has having a son changed that? Did it change it at all? When I was younger and older male mentor told me this. He
235.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I feel you hold a different view then most women. Very different. In fact your views can get you attacked by other women and a few men who completely buy into the whole mainstream story. It's ok for a woman to say what you say in a for
236.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>College is a status symbol and women are buying into it more than males. Isn't this a sexist statement? You're saying that women are more into superficial status symbols than males. This clearly isn't true and is sexist.
237.
by kilgnad 4y ago
So women are superior to men because of hardship. But that would imply anyone who goes through hardship becomes superior. So for example war. Men historically have been exclusively sent to war and suffer through hardships unimaginable to mo
238.
by kilgnad 4y ago
You can't post this here it's sexist and against the rules. It is, however, not sexist at all to say women are intellectually superior to men. But both sentences have the same underlying meaning, just one conveys the meaning throu
239.
by kilgnad 4y ago
That doesn't mean there aren't morphological differences between sex. Men in general have bigger muscles and penises, while women have breasts. There is nothing logical or scientific that precludes differences in intelligence eith
240.
by kilgnad 4y ago
How is this an "accomplishment for gender equity." Isn't this still inequity? I think the fact that the writer couldn't perceive how this is still, logically speaking, "inequity" speaks to the bias at play in t

More ›