Basically how I do rubber duckie debugging
See? It should work because I initialize it as this and iterate doing this and this which gives me a data structure like this and … wait … oh hell that clearly doesn’t produce the data structure I want. 🤦
We tend to see what we want to see, not what actually is.
The feeling before writing a piece of code in an empty file isn’t unlike the feeling I get when I’m about to step into the hot tub. Once I’m in I’m good, but I really have to psyche myself up to get in
Edit: Come to think of it, it’s the same with writing
Which bible passage is that again?
And even if they do need to train a model, transfer learning is often a viable shortcut
Skinnier tires are actually better in snow because they can dig down to the ground somewhat and find traction there. Wide tires tend to float on top of the snow because of the larger contract patch (but not enough to stay above it, that requires huge, under-inflated-balloon-like tires like what you’d need on an antarctic expedition)
I mean, it’s a large American pickup truck. We all know that it’s only a matter of time before those rims are replaced with polished aluminum trashcans
Definitely important, but in my experience with good tires and patience you can basically plow the snow out of the way
I always have to watch it 20 times before I continue scrolling
I’ve actually had decent luck with it for big-picture questions. Like, “How do I go about accomplishing this, with this, given this?” It might list a few options, so when before I didn’t have a clue, now I have some ideas and can ask/Google the questions that I didn’t even know I didn’t have before. Of course, you’ve gotta use due diligence, don’t just take its word for it.
Sometimes even when I don’t get a good answer from it, it still breaks me out of the mind block I’m in, so I guess it’s helped me indirectly that way.
I don’t agree with the position of banana
You’re right, it’s very much context dependent, and I appreciate your incite on how this clash between psychology and computer science muddies the terms. As a CS guy myself who’s just dipping my toes into NN’s, I lean toward the psychology definition, where intelligence is measured by behavior.
In an artificial neural network, the algorithms that wrangle data and build a model aren’t really what makes the decisions, they just build out the “body” (model, generator functions) and “environment” (data format), so to speak. If anything that code is more comparable to DNA than any state of mind. Training on data is where the knowledge comes from, and by making connections the model can “reason” a good answer with the correlations it found. Those processes are vague enough that I don’t feel comfortable calling them algorithms, though. It’s pretty divorced from cold, hard code.
AI knows nothing and are just dumb correlation engines
Here’s a thought exercise, how do you “know”? How do you know your pet? LLMs like gpt can “know” about a dog in terms of words, because that’s what they “sense”, that’s how they interact with their “environment”. They understand words and how they relate to other words, basically words are their entire environment.
Now, can you describe how you know your dog without your senses, or anything derived from your senses? Remember, chemical receptors are “senses” too.
I remember reading about this awhile back but I don’t have the link on me: Did you know that people who were born blind but have their vision repaired years later don’t immediately know what “pointy” looks like? They never formed that correlation between the feeling of pointy and the visual of pointy the way that they could with the feeling and the word.
My point is, we’re correlation machines too
This is what it comes down to. Until we agree on a testable definition of “intelligence” (or sentience, sapience, consciousness or just about any descriptor of human thought), it’s not really science. Even in nature, what we might consider intelligence manifests in different organisms in different ways.
We could assume that when people say intelligence they mean human-like intelligence. That might be narrow enough to test, but you’d probably still end up failing some humans and passing some trained models
It’s not like you lose access to the cli when you use a gui. I personally use both
NO WAY
I know, I know, I figured someone was going to bring this up, and personally that’s part of the reason I justify my own piracy (cause I’m broke and movie studios aren’t), but two things:
The cost of creating, copying, and distributing a good isn’t strictly relevant to the transaction of said good. If the original owner doesn’t want me to have access to a good without paying for it, and I take it anyway, that’s stealing. The labor and capital required to create, copy, and distribute that good isn’t relevant to that transaction, only my moral justification for stealing it anyway. Which is fine, imo, just be honest with yourself. You’re stealing, and it’s justified. Stick it to the man
Assuming that it is relevant, making digital media isn’t free. I can get away with piracy only because there’s enough people paying for the media to make it worth it for the studio. At least one other commenter pointed this out, but if everyone pirated, who would be making movies and video games? So to keep the system going, imo, only pirate if you weren’t going to buy it anyway - piracy or nothin.
Granted, I only skimmed through the article, and overall I agree with, but that headline is a nonsensical statement. This coming from someone who pirates every movie and show that isn’t on Disney+. Whether you own, rent, or lend, you still had to pay for access to it. Piracy circumvents that. I don’t own the rental car. If I drove off with it, is that not stealing?
There are plenty of ways to justify piracy. There’s a few good reasons listed in the article. I do it because switching between a dozen streaming services is too inconvenient. But even putting morality aside, that headline is just plain dumb, it’s illogical.
Edited in case this came on too harsh
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, this might be the best feature of Google photos