sgdfhijfgsdfgds

1) not really, only one of them talks about opponents as enemies

2) the leader of only one of them is threatening to lock up journalists, shut down broadcasters, and use the military against his enemies.

3) only one of them led an attempted autogolpe that was condemned at the time by all sides

4) Musk is only backing the one described in 1, 2 and 3 above.

It's not really arguable, all this stuff.

The guy who thinks the USA should go to Mars clearly thinks he's better throwing in his lot with the whiny strongman dude who is on record -- via his own social media platform -- as saying that the giant imaginary fraud he projected to explain his humiliating loss was a reason to terminate the Constitution.

And he's putting a lot of money into it, and co-running the ground game. But sure, he wants to go to Mars. So it's all good.

I often wonder if Peter Thiel is somewhere, laughing bitterly into a glass of terrible overpriced gin that only a billionaire would drink: "this fuckin' guy... this is my schtick"

I'm sure this is fine, and there is no reason to be concerned that the same very rich person is behind this device as the AI technology whose worst outcomes it exists to combat.

Also there's a blockchain so that's great! I know you're not a crypto evangelist on Twitter anymore, or an NFT evangelist, and now you're an AI consultant and solutions provider. But here it is -- that great application for the blockchain you were all so sure was coming all along.

All tied up with one neat looped bow that can make you feel like it isn't somehow some empty, culture-destroying, billionaire-welfare griftapolooza.

And it's even a bit YCombinator because Sam Altman, right? He was always going to make it. He's got the killer instinct.

Ehhh though he does seem to think that taking the USA to fascism is a prerequisite.

(This is, I think, an apolitical observation: whatever you think about Trump, he is arguing for a pretty major restructuring of political power in a manner that is identifiable in fascism. And Musk is, pretty unarguably, bankrolling this.)

The course I did at uni, decades ago now, set us a Prolog assessment where we were not allowed to use the cut operator.

Code that backtracks is hard to reason about.

> 'Prolog + LLM' is not the answer to all questions, but it looks like a good step to move us forward.

Or it's a thing people can write papers about, and chase reproducibility on afterwards, as the shell game of claiming LLM reasoning continues.

> Again, Prolog is not magick. The article above and the papers it links to seem to take this attitude of "just add Prolog" and that will make LLMs suddenly magickally reason with fairy dust on top. Ain't gonna happen.

It frightens me that HN is so popular with people who will strain credulity in this regard. It's like a whole decade of people engaging in cosmic-ordering wishes about crypto has now led to those same people wishing for new things as if the wishes themselves are evidence of future outcomes.

It's actually pretty concise: Prolog isn't all that easy! That's why people don't use it.

Competent CS students fail Prolog courses all the time. A lot of Prolog on the internet will either be wrong, or it will be so riddled with unnecessary/unclear backtracking that an LLM won't be able to make more sense of it than it does words.

Because Prolog is difficult, and expressing fuzzy real-world facts and nuances in it is harder.

I know we're not supposed to comment on downvotes but I really question the logic of anyone who thinks that a thing that cannot reason can write a prolog program that is really going to be much more successful.

Prolog is actually pretty difficult to do right, even if you are skilled. It actually requires reasoning. You don't just write out facts and have the system do the work. And many of the examples in the training set will be wrong, naturally simplistic or be full of backtracking that is itself difficult for a person to comprehend at a glance; why should an LLM be better at it? There can't even be that much data in the training set.

Ultimately, though: stop believing in magical solutions to fundamental problems. This is nuts.

This is magical thinking. If an LLM can’t reason it isn’t going to be able to express itself clearly in Prolog.

Suggesting otherwise is intellectually on the same level as trying to make up a small consistent per-sale loss with volume.

It's not universal but some of this stuff seemingly stems from the framework level -- Gtk and Qt.

For example, QGIS and FreeCAD are very good indeed on the Mac, and the quirky problems FreeCAD has on the Mac are generally Qt problems (font mapping, some window handling stuff, very occasional high-DPI things).

Command-line/server-based FOSS stuff is usually not a great challenge.

I guess this is kind of what one could predict, comparing Linux and the Mac. Though it's also the case that Qt and Gtk get more portability eyeballs on Windows, which again is probably what one could predict.

Exactly this. It's obvious that generative AI content is bad for search and indexing, and I wish more people would learn to extrapolate from the forms of the problem that already exist, that the quality of the generated content is not going to solve the "please, god, find me something a real person actually said about this real thing" problem.

I just don't understand how people can pretend this isn't happening just because they find each new twist of a technology fascinating.

It can open Affinity Designer files!? That’s something of a buried lede.

That could make the path from Designer to FreeCAD a bit easier; FreeCAD still has something of a special relationship with Inkscape SVG files.