qarl

13 ms·

301.
by qarl 9mo ago
You know, I think I disagree. I didn't give Picasso the benefit of the doubt because he was an amazing artist. I did so simply because I was ignorant of how horrible he was. Some people have trouble updating their feelings when new in
302.
by qarl 10mo ago
HEH. You're being willfully dense. No one is upset about pizza toppings.
303.
by qarl 10mo ago
Heh... do you realize that your comment undermines itself?
304.
by qarl 10mo ago
Maybe. Or maybe people are just REALLY fed-up with assholes. Hard to say.
305.
by qarl 10mo ago
> His earthly power is gone Well... unless he has followers, right? I would argue that Jesus remains a powerful force today despite being dead for 2000 years. I don't think people go out of their way to talk shit about everyday shi
306.
by qarl 10mo ago
It's a long list. Sadly, Dawkins is also on there. And I'd argue Elon fits the bill, too.
307.
by qarl 10mo ago
It's super easy to discover why people found him offensive. Why are you feigning ignorance?
308.
by qarl 10mo ago
You might also enjoy arguing.
309.
by qarl 10mo ago
WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO OPEN A WEBPAGE.
310.
by qarl 10mo ago
He wants more information because the story doesn't ring true, in his experience.
311.
by qarl 10mo ago
Yes, but they only count as 3/5 a person.
312.
by qarl 10mo ago
Not at all. NOT AT ALL. There are shades of gray here. But you are absolutely not required to extend benefit of the doubt to entities that have not earned it. That's a recipe for disaster. Personally, I find myself to be incredibly
313.
by qarl 1y ago
To a small degree, yes. GZIP knows that some patterns are more common in text than others - that understanding allows it to compress the data. But that's a poor example of what I'm trying to convey. Instead consider plotting the
314.
by qarl 1y ago
> they are compressing the data beyond the known limits, or they are abstracting the data into more efficient forms. I would argue that this is two ways of saying the same thing. Compression is literally equivalent to understanding.
315.
by qarl 1y ago
Hm. When I think to myself, I hear words stream across my inner mind. It's not pages of text. It's words.
316.
by qarl 1y ago
Yeah. People use their real identities on Facebook, and it doesn't help a bit.
317.
by qarl 1y ago
Hm. It seemed like you were belittling it. Still seems that way.
318.
by qarl 1y ago
There's no need to belittle dataflow graphs. They are quite a nice model in many settings. I daresay they might be the PERFECT model for networks of agents. But time will tell. Think of it this way: spreadsheets had a massive impact
319.
by qarl 1y ago
The real metric is whether anyone remembers it in 100 years. Any other discussion just comes off as petty.
320.
by qarl 1y ago
From the article: Some ask: "Isn't backpropagation just the chain rule of Leibniz (1676) [LEI07-10] & L'Hopital (1696)?" No, it is the efficient way of applying the chain rule to big networks with differentiable node
321.
by qarl 1y ago
every good thing i ever did i did because it was fun.
322.
by qarl 1y ago
Each billionaire provides his own evidence as to why billionaires should not exist. Don't worry guys - I'm sure there won't be a violent revolution this time.
323.
by qarl 1y ago
You're thinking of NeXTSTEP. Before OS X.
324.
by qarl 1y ago
That's an interesting question. It's not the one they are trying to answer, however. From my personal experience: yes, if you describe a problem without mentioning the name of the algorithm, an LLM will detect and apply the algor
325.
by qarl 1y ago
> The paper doesnt mention the models coming up with the algorithm at all AFAIK. And that's because they specifically hamstrung their tests so that the LLMs were not "allowed" to generate algorithms. If you simply type &qu
326.
by qarl 1y ago
You ARE being extremely transparent. That's not what I complained about. My complaint is that you're saying "trust me" and that isn't transparent in the least. Am I wrong?
327.
by qarl 1y ago
[flagged]
328.
by qarl 1y ago
Yes, I agree entirely: LLMs can produce very entertaining content. I daresay that in this case, the content is interesting because it appears to be the actual thought process. However, if it is actually using EXIF data as you initially dis
329.
by qarl 1y ago
> I’m confident it didn’t cheat and look at the EXIF data on the photograph, because if it had cheated it wouldn’t have guessed Cambria first. It also, at one point, said it couldn't see any image data at all. You absolutely cannot
330.
by qarl 2y ago
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

More ›