s0ulphire

'Temperature' would probably already be close, which controls how much GPT takes low probability (could reasonably be interpreted as confidence?) into account.

Love it! The older kids in the fam regularly revisit this game to recreate the lan battles of old, would love adding these to shake things up a bit :) post up a paypal donation link if you'd like some $$ for your efforts!

FYI the word you're lookin for is 'vein' :) the other type means conceited/narcissistic.

The assumption that a child can't give consent is based on their lack of understanding of what exactly they're consenting to, same as a drunk person can't give consent for the same reason. So yes, a 16yo seeking out a 12yo to have sex with would be wrong. Or an 18yo with a 14yo. They are not peers.

We may indeed have souls or be eternal; although I call myself atheist, I don't agree with subscribing with 100% certainty to any idea. As CosmicSkeptic points out everyone holds bad ideas without knowing it, and unless you're open to questioning them you'll never find out.

With that said, there is quite literally zero evidence for the existence of a soul, despite it being posited for thousands of years, and increasing evidence that consciousness is simply a product of a sufficiently connected system. I'll draw an analogy to temperature, which isn't "created", but is a simple consequence of two points in space having different energy levels. I'm sure there's a better analogy that could be made, but I think you get the idea.

A follow up question: as a human doesn't start with "knowing" something either and first creates definitions for objects or words, which it then uses to build increasingly abstract concepts that we eventually classify as "knowledge" on the thing, is there anything that would stop LLMs from being able to do the same thing? I fully agree the capability is not there yet, but I can't say what would stop an appropriately designed model from being able to do so myself.

I'll dig up a source in a bit, but there is a critical period of development in which a child must be exposed to language, or they will fail to develop the very core skills that you're suggesting are innate abilities in a person regardless of their upbringing. This is exactly how you learned everything you know; your parents talked to you. Language grants you the ability to define concepts in the first place, without which you have no ability to recognise them as you have no language with which to think about them in the first place. So what specifically differentiates the way your brain learned to classify objects and words from the way a NN does? And what stops a NN from being able to develop concepts based on the relationship of those new definitions in the same way you do? IMO arguably it's just a matter of processing power and configuration of the network.

The question being asked was "what it would mean under this definition of knowing things for a machine learning algorithm to ever know something". Aside from your answer being rude, it's also unhelpful in that it doens't address the question asked and instead relies on reductio ad absurdum to pretend to make a point.

If you'd like to take a crack at a helpful answer, perhaps educate us all on what it WOULD take for you to consider a NN to actually "know" something in the same way that we say a human or other sentient animal does.

Serious question, does anyone really struggle with staying under their data limit anymore? I pay $28AUD a month and get 85GB, and I use about 20 of that per month?

You do realise the definition is "beautiful or delightful in a way that seems removed from everyday life"...seems like you're set on defining "magical" as "related to druids" lol, when nobody is using the term in that way.

Sorry that's my bad, I meant *Fiddler not wireshark. Fiddler makes it a piece of cake to decrypt the extra tls, leaving you with just the encrypted data you were sending.

The data is successfully encrypted before it's sent (which you can verify with wireshark). What exactly are your concerns, given that the data isn't encrypted locally in the first place? And seriously with the question...what do you think is more likely, that the tiny team of 6 invested a ton of time reinventing the wheel with a custom in-house AES implementation, OR that they used any of the readily available and extremely well tested libraries? SMH

It does when the position of each sensor relative to the position of the others matters. On earth that's trivial, but if you're 1.5 million kms out in space you could imagine this being significantly more difficult.

Not to mention, each of these 100 units would require the same shielding from radiation as the giant one does for the same reasons. We chose L2 for a very good reason; where are these 100 going to go? What are the odds that each one will end up where it needs to be x100 attempts?