That's an absurdly selfish position. You're taking a stance that not existing is superior to living in the future, all the while living in the world yourself. Might as well advocate for nuclear genocide.
"strict vegan diet" AKA supporting industrial byproducts made into ultraprocessed food made on the other side of the globe rather than consuming vegetables, fish & meat produced locally and ecologically.
This article seems unusually misrepresenting of the theory of humours, which was prevalent in medieval Europe, at least in the catholic parts. This theory stated that no food was explicitly bad or good; rather, you should eat food that is suitable for your temperament. In that sense, they did not believe any food is necessarily (at least in terms of the humours) unhealthy; rather, it may be unsuitable or suitable for your temperament and the balance of humours within you. The hesistance of wet was mostly of its association with diseases; but it was recommended to cholerics, whose temperament needed to be balanced with it.
In a sense, it sometimes produces better results (by chance) than modern dietary practices which often held up some types of (seemingly innocent food; like animal fats) to be categorically unhealthy.
> Complexion also determined what a person should eat, so that (for example) garlic and pepper were good for the phlegmatic, but “venym” to a choleric person.
using the current solution and a cache pattern doesnt solve it, but it is an "affordable" solvable problem. but first we need to ignore OP said its ok for now...have a hackathon to solve for this. OP says it's not a problem for him right now but if we extrapolate what he's talking about it's definitely a problem aaaaaaand It's totally solvable, Even with all of the crazy combinations he's talking about it's still solvable. And it's already been solved using patterns we see in streaming services. This is completely hackathonable. but why do we even need to bother with this? The slurpers are the cause of this, and they can cause this problem because of Murphy's Law. well you can only account for Murphy's Law with good architecture or something like that or whatever. Ha ha hackathon.
It's not that different, when a human proposes a better definition vis-a-vis a competing one for example, they would defend this by certain desiderata.
Often a mathematician or physicist will use their intuition to speed up the naive brute force of candidate well formed formula variations so that the desired properties emerge, postulating the existence of an intersection on multiple desiderata can in itself be viewed as a novel conjecture, to be proven or disproved.
A very basic (unimpressive) example for an example desideratum is regularity or compactness. the tau=2 * pi substitution does make a whole bunch of expressions more slightly more regular and compact. That is something objective and measurable on a system of theorems.
There is no mathematician's moat vis-a-vis machine learning at a fundamental level. There can be artificially sustained moat, if AI powers limit the distribution of say cryptographic advance capable models, in jurisdictions outside such AI powers, but even that would be expected to be fleeting and temporary...
You're conflating a discussion about current LLM capabilities with your fantasies about nonexistent future AI. LLMs act nothing like this, and the small example you're giving is only a small part of the things that LLMs can't do.
Not that I'm a professional mathematician, but I'm not seeing why people think definitions are somehow a blocker. LLMs have no issue making definitions (interfaces/traits/abstract classes) in programming, which is formally the same activity. I ask them to form a core "spine" of a program (basically an intelligible theory), and they do it really well.
Like when we had these recent counterexamples to various conjectures, it's then pretty obvious to say "okay why did that counterexample work when most examples people looked at didn't" or equivalently "characterize examples that work vs examples that don't". There's your definition. "Def: An 'evil' polynomial is one that... Thm: conjecture is true iff f is non-evil. Thm: f is evil iff f is dastardly and a menace. "
Or if you think it won't be able to come up with a sufficiently good name, just tell it to call the happy case normal, and it will be in good company with humans[0]. Sprinkle in some semi-, quasi-, pre-, and para- to cover the various different ways the thing might satisfy some but not all properties of being normal, and it'll fit right in. "A polynomial is of quasiprenormal Claude type if..."
> LLMs have no issue making definitions (interfaces/traits/abstract classes) in programming, which is formally the same activity. I ask them to form a core "spine" of a program (basically an intelligible theory), and they do it really well.
Is it a "standard" software? Something where the patterns exists in several other software? Try with something that is novel, or is in a limited set. You will find that it will copy heavily from what exists already, going so far as lifting whole functions from another project.
The goalpost moving is really getting absurd, to the point where now the machine needs to be a world-class once-a-century genius that invents entire new fields out of thin air (which are of course still relevant to humans) for it to be "intelligent". Meanwhile a well above average human struggles to even apply trivial definitions to particular problems (c.f. programmers that don't understand monoids).
Not PC but is ideologically high-handed and inappropriate to accuse the other side of failing to stick to your desired framing of a discussion.
Computer science is about what LLMs fundamentally are. If you implicitly focus on "actually existing LLMs", and require others do this, then that is not computer science. That is politics.
I think the parent meant it is more interesting to pose new problems than solve them. Posing a new conjecture along the path to solving something is a close cousin, but still seems more bounded than proposing something novel to prove—if only because proving that something novel is also actually interesting is subjective and thus difficult for a different reason.
Alcohol is definitely much, much, MUCH more harmful than sugar - especially when we consider alcohol itself contains extreme amounts of sugar. I'm talking more than soda.
Basically every culture is built around the consumption of carbohydrates, which are all similarly easy to absorb like sugar. Rice, Potatoes, Bread, it's all in the same category in my understanding. An easy source of burnable energy, easier to break down into the "right kind" of carbon rings than e.g. fat. The comparison is kinda weak, this is literally one of the pathways of our basic metabolism. Unlike alcohol, which has a complex and toxic pathway to get anywhere.
Sugar is not addictive nor is it "much more harmful than alcohol". No one out there is just eating spoons of sugar because of its addictive properties.
Your post about obesity doesn't imply it's all about sugar.
One of the reasons obesity is such an issue is because of the combination of sweet and savoury foods that are very calories dense and not very satiating.
Your “counterargument” supports the argument that you quoted though. People can't eat spoonfuls of sugar, but they can drink it when dissolved in flavorful, acidic water.
Except the part where where alcohol metabolizes into aldehyde species which cause double strand DNA breaks faster than we can repair them and we get moderate cancers ... but other than that it is great (ignoring the behavioral aberrations).
Your claim was: "Sugar is much more addictive and harmful than alcohol". I have no objection to the claim that obesity claims more lives than alcohol in the US.
Vast majority of adults consume alcohol in moderation, so clearly it is possible. It's really not that addictive if you don't have some physical or psychological predisposition to alcoholism.
I mean, it is. We give it a different name and highly control it, but if you're getting end of life treatment for cancer or whatever, they give you powerful pain relievers in the hospital, under tight control.
Then maybe society should be improved upon so that a few dollars or a few minutes of "fun" or "street cred" isn't seen as such a boon to their life that people risk jail time for it.
The US tried "tough on crime" approaches, what has it resulted in? 25% of the entire world's prison population and it still has higher crime rates than its peer nations.
Nobody goes to jail for stealing bikes. Here, the cops will take a report but that's it. It doesn't get investigated. There's a very good chance any homeless person with a bike is in posession of a stolen bike but they don't even fish in that barrel.
That's right, people steal bikes because they are inherently evil and want to make baby Jesus cry.
I think it's ok to define "survive" as an addict who needs (<-also loosely defined) a fix.
You don't generally commit serious white collar crime, tax fraud or do crypto grifts to survive. For petty street crime, I don't really see any other motivation.
There are a lot of teenagers stealing bikes and other stuff for fun. It's common, and in many circles very "cool". Doesn't have to be inherent, really.
I don't care if they're woke, but I do care that every model naturally leans left, but Grok leans right. That signals to me that it's been/being tampered with and I don't like that. LLMs rely on statistics and a model that leans right is a statistical anomaly. I don't like anomalies. It has nothing to do with if the chat bot misgenders me or not. I don't give a shit about any of that. I give a shit that the data set is bad. I don't want anomalous models writing code for me and I don't think that's a crazy take.
And google was rendering the founding fathers to be black. By the way Google has recently been determined to be the MOST neutral LLM. I guess they learned their lesson after Black George Wash.
It makes sense in the black-majority country of South Africa, which was the context of Grok's rant. They sing "kill the Boers, kill the farmers" at major political rallies, and it's not even illegal.
I'm curious, do you have an example of a level of "woke" extremeness demonstrated by the "rest of them" that is on par with Mecha-Hitler? Because yes, all views on reality are indeed political, but the tendency of most of the models is actually toward the middle, with perhaps some left bias.
This was fine when N = 28. Now it's life of the author plus 95 so there is almost no possibility of anything released in your lifetime to be a part of the public domain before you die.
A british man predicted this was going to happen nearly two centuries ago. His address to the courts are worth reading in their entirety, it contains everything we need to know about copyright.
reply