LordFast

Is that proven somewhere in a way that's not a probabilistic outcome? Can you share it?

Thanks. I stand corrected.

Still mostly looking at the result the same way in that untruthful biases can very much be built into the model through those training processes. Let me know if I'm incorrect.

Yeah we do this at home. Bedrooms plus the great room on the kitchen side.

It might not be guaranteed to help, but it sure doesn't hurt since it's cleaning the air anyway.

Eh, there's good and bad. The model mostly sticks to prevailing narratives in the training corpus. So if there is something that the prevailing narrative is really wrong about, it's gonna be just as pig-headed about it as a typical internet forum rando.

This is the thing about models though: if the model has seen that action in the training corpus somewhere, then there's a chance it will do that thing. No?

The thing that bothers me is because everything is probabilistic, it gives a lot of people an incentive and a loophole to claim otherwise to fit their agenda, whatever it is.

AFAICT it's hard to prove one way or another, since again it's a probabilistic model.

What you said made sense until I said it out loud to my wife.

Hoarding access to resources has /always/ been the name of the game.

Fellow kerbal space program attendee here:

I believe that while smaller planes will naturally pitch up as speed increases, jumbo jets are much more lumpant even with the correct flaps. That's the terrifying thing in my understanding: the plane basically had no manual pitch due to incorrect config values, and were barely gliding off the ground from minimal natural lift. Meanwhile the two potatoes at the helm were fiddling with the config values instead of pulling on the yoke.

Seriously. Did these pilots think they were playing Microsoft Flight Simulator or something?!

And how much did crypto go up this year compared to S&P500?

"In the end, the most important connection between the Metaverse and the physical world will be you: right now you are in the Metaverse, reading this Article; perhaps you will linger on Twitter or get started with your remote work. And then you’ll stand up from your computer, or take off your headset, eat dinner and tuck in your kids, aware that their bifurcated future will be fundamentally different from your unitary past."

How is this different than me in 2001 using ICQ to chat with my friends/classmates about life/schoolwork, using Yahoo to read news, using forums to consume content and learn new things, and going out to dinner with my family/girlfriend IRL?

How is any of this actually a new paradigm?

I personally think this move, and to a larger extent the current trends we're seeing in our industry has much more to do with revenue, profits and share price than it does with the product or any social consequences.

"I'm not aware of any effort to censor Galileo at this point. If that is the case I'd like to hear about it."

He's saying Galileo was censored during the time Galileo was alive.

This is about as "us vs. them" as it gets, which is to say that it's about as political of a statement as it gets.

I don't think any of this fight is about the actual issue of social media's impact, but perhaps I was naive to ever even think that it was about those issues to begin with.

"Everyone who came before me is a sucker; everyone who came after me is a cheat."

> The only self-restriction is by people that don't have the conviction to stand by their ideas, or actually have not thought through their perspective to adequate level of introspection and evidence that can survive free and open discourse. Instead it's much easier to exclaim victimhood and censorship and not bother examining ideas beyond a gut feeling.

The whole point of intellectual exchange and growth is from the idea of freely sharing ideas regardless of how "thought through" they are. How do you ever go about sharpening a knife if you aren't encouraged to bring a dull one to the grinder?

Have YOU "thought through" your theory/argument/belief/ideology here?