rhn_mk1

25 ms·

271.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
I wonder how this compares to LLVM. That project had building a directly interpretable bytecode and a virtual machine as an initial goal.
272.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
Disapppointing summary from someone whose imagination should allow them to see more. Generative text models might spit out "garbage", but this "garbage" has been more interesting than the garbage we have seen before in h
273.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
What's the game?
274.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
This falls squarely into stepping out of the developer role and taking on the role of a manager though. It's really not about the people who don't want to think about those things.
275.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
I'm not sure I see the point here. You improve the process because you're subject to it, and because the current process has some downsides to you. If you're trying to improve a process just for the recognition, then you&#x27
276.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
A member function must have at least one parameter. Here it's "parameter0": parameter0.membfun() It doesn't really matter whether the parameter name is separated from the function name by a dot, or a bracket. In a differ
277.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
The "pretty much" does all the work here though. It's not pure if you can modify the state of a global, the file system, the environment, the standard output, etc., and this is half of the reason why purity is desired.
278.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
The authors assume the idea for launching an argument, but OP assumes the opposite idea. There's no point to contrasting each other because they are both unproved. At least the web page gaves some reasons why you should entertain the i
279.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
Then you reject the idea that's stated front-and-center as the starting point of their reasoning without giving it any thought. At least they listed a good reason why it might be correct. That's hardly something that can be discus
280.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
You didn't list any reasons why humans aren't algorithms, so I can't see it as anything other than rejecting that view a priori. You reasoning completely breaks down if we accept that we've already given rights to algori
281.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
> You are just an algorithm implemented on biological hardware. It says it right in the beginning. Are you advocating for equating humans with chairs, or are you just rejecting the premise out of hand?
282.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
It's a self-referential loop. Humans have difficulty understanding intelligence that does not resemble themselves, so the thing closest to human will get called AI. It's the same difficulty as with animals being more likely recogn
283.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
You still need overprovisioning on NAND flash devices.
284.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
Is it even an email if all that gets delivered to your inbox is a link?
285.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
I only agree inasfar as the Christian religion goes. There's nothing fundamentally preventing religions from claiming that humans aren't the only ones (scientology anyone?). There's nothing fundamentally requiring non-religio
286.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
When you're working with software controlling lithium batteries, things literally blowing up in your face because of code mistakes are an actual concern. Things figuratively blowing up in your face are a concern even when not working o
287.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
Humans alone? Maybe not today. Humans and those organisms joining forces? I don't see how that would make the danger lesser than the random walk of those organisms unaided.
288.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
Could you link to any sources? This sounds big.
289.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
We're talking about possible technology. The possible might be imagined, but not all imaginary is possible. The problem is, we don't know which is possible and which is not.
290.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
What is this comment meant to say? I can't parse that.
291.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
I'm still waiting for the mainstream media to acknowledge that creating a caste of robot slaves would be just as much a catastrophe as being subjugated.
292.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
What does it change when you add another model? I don't see how this lets us extract extra information. What distinguishes two conjoined models from one model with a narrowing across the middle? If the idea is to have two similar minds
293.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
> To be clear, I am not arguing that it would be impossible to show a theory of mind in a system that can only interact through text I think you are, because > a model with greater capabilities than responding to prompts interacts in
294.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
It's hard to look at behaviour separately from language if the only behaviour available is to generate text. As long as we don't have a test agnostic of medium, this will have to do. In the end, we can't overcome the limitati
295.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
That you're talking over a great distance isn't necessarily an improvement. Didn't internet influence how much people are meeting in person?
296.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
Brothers Grimm would like a word with you about what "BS" means. ChatGPT is good at making up stories.
297.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
It's not clear how, because it's not clear what e.g. "acceptable" means.
298.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
Yes, but actually no. Precision becomes important once you start digging in. Calculate the GPS time dilation without sufficient precision and you'll be in trouble. Go down to quantum physics to discover that the exact ratio of mass bet
299.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
I don't see why it would be any more of a wild guess than the guess at what rock layers were hit by the asteroid and what effect they had at displacing water.
300.
by rhn_mk1 4y ago
Of ocean-going oil tankers.

More ›