slashdave

31 ms·

661.
by slashdave 2y ago
Sure, but why not just cut out the middlemen? Just install a EU representative in each Apple office, and they can watch over all the developers and dictate features.
662.
by slashdave 2y ago
Except important products will be pulled from the App Store because they will become exclusives in 3rd party stores.
663.
by slashdave 2y ago
It is exhausting, but so is the misconception that the output of an LLM can be cleanly divided into two categories.
664.
by slashdave 2y ago
You cannot manufacture new information out of the same data. Why should you believe the output of the LLM just because it is formatted a certain way (i.e. "formal logical relationships")?
665.
by slashdave 2y ago
Reel to reel
666.
by slashdave 2y ago
Except LLMs are a distraction from AGI
667.
by slashdave 2y ago
Since no one knows how to build an AGI, hard to say. But you might imagine that more restricted goals could end up being easier to accomplish. A "safe" AGI is more focused on doing something useful than figuring out how to take ov
668.
by slashdave 2y ago
There is no equivalence. Apple has been building on this technology for years now, all with a focus on privacy. Microsoft neither has the engineering talent, the time, nor the development ecosystem to catch up.
669.
by slashdave 2y ago
Nevermind accessible to other users, but accessible to any 3rd party application that the user executes. A nightmare of a security hole.
670.
by slashdave 2y ago
My suspicion is that Microsoft learned of Apple's effort, thus this rushed, skunkworks implementation, pushed to be released before Apple. The effort backfired spectacularly.
671.
by slashdave 2y ago
> If it was so easy why aren't there more of them and more companies? Wait, is this a serious question? The limiting factor is VC money, of course.
672.
by slashdave 2y ago
> there's a decent chance you'll walk away with very little Well, some founders care about their employees and their idea, and the idea of the start up failing is much more than just money.
673.
by slashdave 2y ago
A virus can use its own LLM, so I guess you don't want indexing at all. Makes it hard to find stuff.
674.
by slashdave 2y ago
Language is only sequential in the form it is transmitted (verbally). There is no reason that sequential statements are generated sequentially in the brain. Quite the opposite, really, if you consider rules of grammar. I really wish most of
675.
by slashdave 2y ago
You mean without training, people cannot frame answers in the terms you've learned from training. Well, why are you surprised? If you think reasoning is limited to the frameworks you learned from a book, you live in a small world.
676.
by slashdave 2y ago
There is no feedback. You cannot create new knowledge out of thin air.
677.
by slashdave 2y ago
Seriously? You think individuals are incapable of reasoning without training first?
678.
by slashdave 2y ago
Even language is not sequential.
679.
by slashdave 2y ago
Not comparable. Our current knowledge of the physics involved in these systems is complete. It is just impossibly difficult to calculate from first principles.
680.
by slashdave 2y ago
In terms of docking, you can call the conventional approaches "physically-based", however, they are rather poor physical models. Namely, they lack proper electrostatics, and, most importantly, basically ignore entropic contributio