_0ffh

Yeah, until you follow the link only to find out that the link does not say what Perplexity told you it does. This happened to me a frightful number of times.

Funny, my logging module for Python does the same (if requested with an optional keyword argument). It fetches the call stack, removes it's own functions, replaces Python library function chains with a single [...] and prepends it to the log output (together with usual date and time).

Quite often these advertisers are also doing this primarily to appease, or at least are triggered into action by pressure groups.

Nobody is getting "muted or silenced by mindless, heartless algorithms"!

They are getting muted or silenced by busybodies who try to control language, and are either in a position to install these algorithms, or are part of pressure mobs that aim to influence the former.

Hmm, I have read contradicting accounts.

They say the term did not originate from the steam condenser. Quite the opposite, it became deprecated because of the ambiguous meaning of steam condenser.

Yes. Also, while the model having a certain instruction once in it's context might count as the agent "knowing" about it, I'm almost certain that repeating those instructions - especially right at the position in the context where it counts - should almost certainly make a difference. Of course I can't know how much of a difference exactly, but that's what experiments are for.

I think this is a really excellent idea!

I'm almost sure that should at least lower the inclination of the model to try and "fix" the access problem, and I want to see this implemented and systematically evaluated.

I wish I could highlight this more than just with a vote and a reply, but I'll just have to be content with doing what I can here.

True, though the timeline was more the other way around. Error backprop was used as a method for training before using AD to automate the implementation work became the norm. Previously you had to write the backward pass by hand, now we use AD to derive it from the forward pass.

Easily circumvented: Generate a random seed in the shell and pass it to the core.

Well, there's essentially two major ways to use these models: Pair programming or fully autonomous fire-and-forget code generation. The second strategy needs essentially zero input, so the number of tokens you can blow is practically only limited by API speed.

Arrogant, pseudo-intellectual drivel.

That's what I though. I've got a harness that uses landlock. Might not be perfect, but should be good enough for almost all cases.

Inadvertent touching is fixable, ARM for example did it with the S bit (though on AArch64 it's slightly more complicated).

I regard it as a mistake of RISC-V. The flag register was invented for good reasons, and dropping it is a trade-off I personally do not think is worth the downside.

>absolute distain for flag registers

It's worst aspect maybe.