cout

How do we (or can we) know adversarial attacks don't work on us?

That the graph exists at all is a non-neutral statement about that graph versus all other possible graphs that could have been drawn and were not.

I don't find ads tedious at all. In fact, since I grew up with ads on tv, I miss them. The commercial break was a scheduled time to get a snack, go to the bathroom, get a snack, etc. Today's platforms put the ad breaks in such awkward spots that doing those things is a lot less natural. IMO, it's not the ads that after the problem; it's the way they are used.

What? F3 should be help and F7 is exit. That's what the WP keyboard template says and I'm sticking to it.

I use the LLM to point me at relevant books and papers. But there is still a trust problem: I am trusting the LLM to point me at reliable, trustworthy sources.

I'm not sure I'm better off with humans though -- I'm not qualified to judge whether a source is a proper authority, not an I qualified to judge whether someone knows enough to point me to a reliable source.

It seems this is a fundamental epistemological problem to which there may never be an answer.

Can you explain the France paradox?

I got the opposite impression from reading the post. Perhaps this is a Goldilocks situation?

I agree. To me it's more interesting that there exists a physical process that performs a Fourier transform than that there could exist such a process. If it can be done on pen and paper, it's already proven that it can be done in a physical system, since the pen and paper are physical.

Yes.

Occasionally there are some real treats in those snippets. I remember being floored when Trinity exploited a real ssh v1 bug in Matrix Reloaded.

I think that attitude may change if there is ever an EV that could be competitive in a NASCAR event. For now, the closest we are likely to see is a hybrid, because EVs don't have enough range.

Are you sure you aren't underestimating human capacity for stupidity?

Would it be sufficient to have a second stream of tokens that becomes the model's equivalent of "internal dialogue"? Would that satisfy the requirement of a boundary line?

Related, is a human "thinking out loud" still thinking, even though the internal reasoning is "immediately dumped into the external environment"?

How would someone know whether one has a soul or not? Is there any sort of introspection that can reveal the presence of a soul or any of its properties?

Sounds like you got a lemon. I also have an X1 carbon, and it's been a great upgrade for me. My biggest complaint is the eraser isn't as easy to use as my old toshiba. The eraser is important to me -- my hand gets numb using a trackpad.