Humans can learn texts by heart, even lots of text (I have some expertise on that, having studied opera singing). They can reproduce these texts accurately, deterministically and repeatably. An LLM is a statistical machine. It does not know any text by heart and it is by pure chance that it sometimes reproduces existing texts verbatim.
Break it into small chunks and practice. Practice more. Put the chunks together and practice even more. Like any skill, it isn't something people are magically good at beyond minor proficiency.
Every performance- singing a song, playing an instrument, performing a stand-up routine, giving a speech, performing a theatrical role are all things that are best done from memory but require practice.
There are pneumonic tricks you can use- I've seen some people do it for tricks like memorizing the order of a deck of cards- but it's less useful for long term recital because it helps with order but not comprehension or fast indexing.
Humans sometimes don't remember things 100%. LLMs can produce certain text and be run deterministically.
I don't really understand this side of the debate other than as a gotcha tbh.
If LLM use atrophies your brain and skills that's bad. If it has a repulsive writing style that's bad.
I'm not sure what the debate about whether an AI is a statistical parrot unlike humans accomplishes. Is relying 100% on a bad human speechwriter somehow better?
It comes up frequently when discussing whether LLMs actually have intelligence or qualify as AI, especially in discussions on the path to achieving AGI.
The primary complaint seems to be that LLMs are held to a higher standard than humans, though I don't particularly buy that line of reasoning.
This was likely written sarcastically by the original commenter (throw...). Please termimate sarcasm with /s, not everyone is able to read the subtext. Cheers.
In such a world, the government could never be overthrown.
All governments go bad eventually, so the ability to overthrow is critical to prosperity.
Government's are either overthrown internally (revolt, uprising) or by external parties (invasion). A worldwide everyone-knows-everything would prevent both.
What would prevent a bad government from being removed if everything about them is also known? Note this is 100% availability across the board, so the governed would know everything about every potential member of government, which means if they said anything that the many disagreed with at any time, they'd simply be excluded from future candidacy, never gaining the political power/recognition in the first place.
As an Easter egg, I wonder if they can make it accept input in stdin and just discard it. If I was working there and didn’t mind burning some bridges (I’m not sure how many people would get wind of it as it’s quite obscure) I would be tempted to implement it.
Thank you! Taking that refactoring advice at face value when I still was quite junior led to me writing an immensely over-abstracted framework that bit me in the butt for years afterwards when trying to debug or add a new feature. Wasn't easy to unlearn...
Thank God you did. I hear of seniors who still do this shit with no real sense of style because they just assume that over-abstracting everything is always the correct thing to do. You're learning, not unlearning!
Also, of course, the 73 would have to have a hook, which shortens the landing quite some (as well as the lifespan of the fuselage, I assume), as long as you catch the wire, that is. Wingspan-wise, this could also work. @RedBull, how bout it?!
Not necessarily. The C-130 didn't use one. That doesn't mean the 737 could get away with it, but with the carrier going max speed, a decent wind, the plane at min weight and speed, and touching down as early as possible, I wouldn't be surprised if the landing roll was shorter than the length of the deck.
Disclaimer: I also read it as rude at first glance.
Question: Can you classify what is rude or not for autistic people in general or is it more likely that you might perceive something as not rude which other autistic people might perceive as rude?
reply