reichstein

We can't explain how human thinking works, and how they produce their (verbal or written) output.

We can explain how LLMs generates this output.

Humans can't be that simple, there must be some ~~divine~~ unique human touch to what we do.

Every day LLMs, running in frameworks that add earlier "thoughts" to the context and iterate, reflecting on their own thought process, gets better and better at doing something even less distinguishable from human output.

The gap gets smaller. The "unique human touch" will always be in the gap.

The first Chrome did use a fork of WebCore, the HTML part of WebKit, as its rendering engine, but added its own V8 JavaScript engine. The speed of JavaScript was the main differentiator. And _that_ was very different from Safari, and every other existing browser ... The quote is correct.

V8 kept getting even faster, including adding faster RegExps, which pushed the other browsers to speed up their JS too. Firefox is now using that RegExp implementation too, even if they're not using V8.

WebKit was itself a fork of the KHTML browser engine. And just like WebKit diverged from KHTML, Chrome diverged from WebKit.

> Corporate Windows is a horror. How did it get so bad?

You answered that: _Corporate_.

Normal Windows doesn't have all those problems, and most of them sound like they're network, configuration or specific tools related, exactly where corporate setups tend to do things "their own way".

Hawkings radiation doesn't tell you anything about the contents of the black hole, just that it lost energy/mass. That reduces the event horizon, so there is now a (miniscule) amount of space that has become "visible". It'll be empty space, no extra mass is leaked in that way.

> Yeah, this can be a little extreme, and I feel we can benefit from being a little more open to trying new things.

Sure, sometimes, when we have the time and surplus to deal with changes to things that already work well enough, and are not essential to doing our actual job.

That should be something you can opt in to.

Changing things for someone who's actually doing real work on top of the existing setup, is an undesired hurdle.

People are change-averse because they've been taught that change is costly, and they completely rationally ask "what's in it for me?". You want them to buy in to the change, you better give a good answer to that, one which is a more than negligible benefit in a few cases that the user may not care about. "Good enough" is good _enough_, it doesn't _need_ changes. Any change has to pay for its own retraining cost, in time and mental effort, otherwise it's a net negative for that user.

Being change-averse is the rational default behavior. Ignoring that, or even belittling it, is disrespecting your users.

Try "Emitted".

That's what it did, with no analogy needed.

(But, to be the devil's advocate: the fake can be said about the output of anyone participating here.)

> From the point of view of the system, this is an error. It is incorrect information.

Which system?

The LLM has no _concept_ of "correct". It emits output, based on its input and internal state.

If that output happens to be correlated with reality, then it's useful. If it doesn't, and this is not a creative exercise, it's not useful.

Everything an LLM emits is equal to it. It's all confabulation - this it says that is not based on facts, because it also has no concept of fact. Value judgements you make about the output is all you.

"Confabulation" is no less anthropomorphizing than "hallucination".

Can you explain what that misunderstanding is?

Deprecation is just a tag. You don't have to respect it. And if you want the project to continue, you can freely fork it.

"Sent from my iPhone"

Processor instructions are not _strongly typed_. They take bit patterns as input and output new bit patterns.

The bits are untyped, the choice of operation decides how the bits are interpreted. Nothing enforces the type of that result, you can always interpret it as something else. It may not be meaningful. Or it may be, like a fast inverse square root.

Strong typing means that each value has an intrinsic type, and there is no reinterpreting it. What CPUs do is not that, or rather the only types are "_n_-bits" (_n_ a power of 2).

Yes, but for backwards compatibility, Unicode doesn't uppercase ß to ẞ.

I guess that's why you shouldn't be _validating_ things, and then praying them on as-is. "Parsing is validation" is (also) the idea that after validation, your data is in a format that reflects and enforces what's known about it.

"Safe strings" is an example of that idea. Not always possible or practical, but always worth considering if you're doing "validation" as a function.

I think "reflect top to bottom" is intended to mean "swap top and button". A mirror reflects left, right, top and bottom perfectly. It's front and back that it swaps.

Someone saying that a mirror swaps left and right is comparing it to a photograph, and only because we, as bipedal creatures, really prefer to orient images of other humans with heads up.

The image you see in the mirror is a reflection of a human. Or, more precisely, a 2-dimensional projection of the frontal outer surface of a human.

One half of one dimension less than a human. But sure looks convincing on the surface.

Ethics is what people agree on. Not doing unnecessary harm is usually easily agreed on. Don't exploit people who know less it's also on the list. Doesn't mean we didn't learn something valuable from KZ camp experiments, we just don't think it outweighed the costs. And we don't like, or want to encourage, people who think it did.

There are very strict rules for scientific experiments _because_ we know that without them, just guided by "common sense" or "be reasonable", someone would get blinded by ambition or "the potential" and go further than the majority want to accept.

Anyone can "experiment" without it being an accepted scientific experiment. But then they're personally responsible for any and all bad outcomes. If you follow the rules and get the experiment pre-approved, you'll likely be covered by your employer's insurance and free from criminal liability . That's a very good incentive.