> or maybe this is just a retelling of stoicism and endless levels of historical philosophy
I think what OP describes is much more Epicureanism than Stoicism? Stoicism's goal is "living a well-reasoned life" but based on a global logic system and reasoning about the world. Epicureanism is much more about living well enough in your little bubble (which I highly appreciate).
But are these game devs designing the gameplay loop? Or are they working on backend, like the engine?
I could imagine a (solo) game dev not self-describe as a gamer, but they must have some intuition about what makes (video/board) games fun and engaging.
I can't imagine you can obtain that without ever playing games yourself?
The sample set of programming languages means that every name is most certainly not taken, and every language is too close for identical names for unrelated languages being acceptable.
> Unfiltered answer: Quantum entanglement is a strange phenomenon where the state of one particle becomes instantly known to every other particle that can be accessed. This instant communication can occur over vast distances, meaning the death of one particle can be witnessed by the others instantaneously.
Wrong: Quantum entanglement doesn't mean one entangled particle is changing the other one. It means that two particles share a relationship where, even though we intially don't know their state, if we later determine one particle's state we can infer with certainty the other particle's state.
This has been common and popular misconception long before LLMs. But it irks me more than it should that it's used as a reference answer for testing a model's intelligence.
Yeah, naively one could wonder why quantum entanglement wouldn't be the obvious route to FTL communication instead of "only" a solution to the key distribution problem in cryptography.
>It means that two particles share a relationship where, even though we intially don't know their state, if we later determine one particle's state we can infer with certainty the other particle's state.
except that's not the whole truth either. A pair of gloves in separate boxes fits your description but aren't entangled, they always have a concrete state (hidden variables).
But wouldn't you have to know the exact context before this token in order to verify the watermark? I.e. a paragraph wouldn't be sufficient; you would need the system prompt, previous prompts, and even hidden thinking?
> In fact, one could almost imagine it baked into the assistant/harness
...it already is, via thinking/effort. That wouldn't be possible if a LLM at usable quality wasn't fast enough to allow at least some amount of "thinking" (i.e. hidden text generation).
But your point still stands: we could get massive quality gains by allowing even more thinking by default, if it was fast enough.
> Up close, when you can see what they are, it becomes clear that only a few of these ladder-toppers are indeed wise and cool. More often, they’re sniveling little twerps. They’re spiritually chinless. They have no convictions, no passions, no purpose other than ladder-climbing.
I like the article overall but this part seems overly uncharitable. I think the next step of your development would be to have your own incentives without looking down on other's who you think lack their own. You should be able to know who you are without shitting on others.
I think what OP describes is much more Epicureanism than Stoicism? Stoicism's goal is "living a well-reasoned life" but based on a global logic system and reasoning about the world. Epicureanism is much more about living well enough in your little bubble (which I highly appreciate).
reply