svnt

How many parameters are you planning to use for your doc editor? Email prose is optimal on a different model. Web parser? You might only be able to do one at a time with switching, which will work, but could be tiresome.

Don’t eat Jimmy!

I’m sorry that has been your experience. The language, like anything available and useful, can be used by anyone, and for any purpose.

It is sad that it has been abused by previous generations and in corporate uses to the point where we can no longer even receive emotional support without suspicion of intent.

I hope you are able to find a community where people who say that, feel it, and mean it, and partner with you to resolve the underlying issue.

A good experienced designer who has done esp32 before will have all these modules or similar enough in a library and can just plug them together.

Possible in a day depending on risk tolerance, almost always better imo to sleep on it. There would be no iterations.

But they will not likely do it happily in that timeframe. And you would practically never get them to quote it at one day, especially not without an inflated rate.

Yeah the framing seems inverted. We have a faster system 2 with llms, and system 1 is what decision models are hoping to be, but so far they just seem to be system 2 models without language output.

The terms don't seem to translate well, possibly because they were the wrong framing to begin with. Possibly also because the billions of years of progressively complex evolutionary constraint that brought about animal cognition does not seem likely to be reproduced by running backprop on human language artifacts.

I understand your point, but the context is that repeatedly, experiments have shown that humans inject too much pattern to be good rngs. It turns out that is visible with training after the fact.

Yes, it is possible that any two 50-sequence patterns are actual rng. But some of them are much more likely, and we can tell.

The issue the anecdote is reflecting is that across the data of 50 naive made-up coin tosses there are too many alternating sequences and probably zero HHHHHH.

It sounds an awful lot like the halting problem.

But they are the ones releasing an unverifiable (no model release) and massive and unchecked body of mathematics into the public while making exaggerated claims about its capabilities to replace human work. And they are the ones doing it in advance of a fractional sale of the company to the public.

Fable will already do this, just very subtly.

Gemini has been like that. One early model I used I asked it about another company’s model. It insisted it didn’t exist. I told it when it was released and to search. It did, and found results, but told me it wasn’t really a public model and I couldn’t use it. I screenshotted the pricing page. It told me I got that from somewhere else, it couldn’t be correct, because it couldn’t access that page.

It is one thing to avoid sycophancy, but Gemini often seems to go well beyond that.

Your statements here reflect a fairly typical reductive understanding of not only mystical states, but entire other areas of empirical science that you apparently don’t understand or can’t put in words.

How, precisely, are you linking information theory to this?

I didn’t claim a side for you, you created that. From my perspective it is one system. Right now you are behaving as a person running an incentivized and specialized negentropic process. You are unknowingly chasing theological propositions and claiming victory every time the perspective can be durably shifted.

To move it back into a more familiar frame: theology loads in the low res view and you claim victory while most of what you did was disaggregate pixel values, but collectively a lot of people like you can form new more accurate images in certain parts of the low res view.

While you move through doing that, though, adjacent areas open up where you have no purchase, religion steps in again, and the process repeats.

There is a core that doesn’t disaggregate. That is where the pixels are coming from. That is what you cannot see when all you want is higher resolution.

Beginning at the end of your comment and working backward, what do you think of Gödel Escher Bach or even Logicomix? It isn’t really a matter of debate that you cannot use logic as a universal construction toolkit for a rational reality, it has already been proven. Gödel vs Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead etc.

How do you propose causation emerges exactly? You are a kind of relationist?

You seem to be conflating “doesn’t have reasons” with “is random” because your basis seems be something like a relational rationalist perspective, which I don’t know of as a thing that exists. I don’t believe I have encountered it before.

I can see that some aspects of your perspective make sense, but I don’t see how the aggregate holds together.

edit: I forgot to answer “how so”: your argument against free will seems to be that any choice is in response to a cause, and causes infinitely regress, therefore free will cannot exist.

Both move the choice (or the cause), out of you or me and into the origin of existence. It doesn’t cease to exist, really, it just moves. But your argument, used to argue for the lack of existence of choice, can be used to argue for the lack of existence of cause, because every cause is caused. The term becomes meaningless then, one static continuation.

My argument is that the infinite regress ends in you (and me), because of the details of our construction.

I can’t seem to reply to your comment deeper in the chain.

Starbuck collected data and William James turned the data into a compelling book, The Varieties of Religious Experience. Varieties draws on Starbuck's questionnaire data and names him dozens of times. Some of James’ main arguments were:

1) Against "medical materialism": a belief's origins don't settle its value. If Paul's vision is discredited by its physiology, so is the materialist's own conviction.

2) Mystical states: they carry authority for those who have them but don't bind others. Still, they break ordinary rational consciousness's claim to be the only authoritative kind. The sheer numbers of these, and the intact they have on healthy peoples’ lives, make it hard to argue rationally on an empirical basis that there is nothing there.

3) Structurally the conscious self is continuous with a "wider self" through which religious experiences come, which James calls the "more."

4) "The Will to Believe" (1896): Clifford's rule against believing on insufficient evidence is itself a personal preference, choosing to avoid error over gaining truth.

Following on that: your desire to be a reliable producer of material goods outweighs your desire to understand things that require you to take risks in assuming potentially false viewpoints. This is not common sense (whatever that means), it is an epistemological choice that seems common to you because of your educational and professional environment.