nimbleal

Joined 8 years ago

Karma

424

Submissions

109

Member since

Dec 5

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 1 month ago

I’d argue it’s not an easy question to answer because the person answering doesn’t necessarily know what you mean by soul.

Comment · 1 month ago

My points is more that, while we have a strong intuition about where, as an entity, a human's boundaries are (i.e. where the person begins and ends), philosophically it' not immediately obvious that the analogy applies to the a model in the same way. Why should that be the line drawn that says this is the "thing" and this other stuff is external to the thing? It feels somewhat arbitrary.

Of course this is a difficult question with humans too, hence my reliance on intuition above. We don't have the same cultural/biological framework to fall back on with AI.

Comment · 1 month ago

Maybe practically it doesn’t matter? Perhaps AGI is not the model but the model plus everything it’s got access to. If we’re modelling intelligence in the way we seem to have to to have any coherent definition of AGI, it seems to me <model + everything it can access> is always going to be more “intelligent” than <model> alone.

Comment · 1 month ago

GPT 2 is almost always better (80+% of the time?) than Nano Banana 2, albeit slower

Comment · 3 months ago

Same pass.

Comment · 3 months ago

I work in this industry and I don’t think this is true. Look at these tests, using a camera that’s now two generations out of date:

https://youtu.be/suZtYPIADHM?si=KMgFb1gEhA7z7QVm

I think what makes film great is more the process. It forces slower more deliberate filmmaking and somehow that seems to show up in the product. Only celebrated/respected filmmakers have the influence to force production to allow them to shoot film so there’s a selection bias at play too.

Comment · 3 months ago

I tried with my phone vertical and couldn’t see anything. In horizontal ie bigger image it was clear as day. I think a lot of the variance is probably screens.

Comment · 4 months ago

I see — a blog written by an unknown librarian is a better source than an Oxford fellow writing for a journal with a hundred year pedigree. No further engagement necessary, I think.

Comment · 4 months ago

Yes, it is.

Look at your source — hardly authoritative! And the so-called evidence... Thin, entirely circumstantial, and in places actually wrong.

For example, Saturnalia went — at its longest - until the 23rd, not the 25th. Moreover, Christians likely got the 25th date based on religious calculation[1], not with reference to the one of the ancient festivals Victorian "historians" liked to speculate about.

The article attempts to link gifting verses to writing Christmas cards — a Christmas tradition not popularised until the 19th C and no older than the 17th.

Feasting and exchanging of gifts, much less the greeting "lo saturnalia" — literally the only other "evidence" presented here — need hardly be addressed, given how ubiquitous such things are with regard to festival, and how thin the apparent connection.

There is no positive evidence for this link, hence it not being taken seriously by any modern historian. It is no more than outdated speculation.