ccvannorman
Trying to understand why the poster's own comment was flagged and killed but the original article remains up.
More likely in my opinion it's the context that matters here. If people know they're trying to be convinced of something and know they're talking to an AI, they may feel like they can trust (what they consider to be) an unbiased and rational AI. There's probably a fallacy associated with the assumption that an AI convincer is more rational and fact based, while it's more probable that the AI in the real world is, in fact, funded and trained by a think tank that wants you to vote against your own self-interests.
We make math a joy to play with and spark wonder through experience.
Prime numbers literally come to life, sprouting legs and personalities, as signals from the spirit world animate them; but when your best friend is portaled to the spirit world and NullCorp tried to shut down all research, you find yourself battling and puzzle-solving across a myriad of landscapes to bridge the two worlds and get your friend back.
Tests are ongoing! Reach out if you want to take a dip into our infinite universe.
chuckle
Re-reading the Lean Startup to hone our GTM, market validation and growth engine.
(mathbreakers.com)
Is there anywhere an image example of a superior layout for example with n>={100,1000,10000}..? I would love to see it. I am imagining it would look somewhat like a sloppy pizza.
Commit with one character YAML difference? Check.
Commit with 2-3 YAML lines just to add the right logging? Check.
Wait 5+ minutes for a YAML diff to propagate through our test pipeline for the nth time today? .. sigh .. check
BUT, after ironing all these things out (and running our own beefy self-hosted runner which is triggered to wake up when there's a test process to snack on), it's .. uh.. not so bad? For now?
Is that so much to ask?
Could the next "Apple" produce such hardware/software stack to black box this for the consumer -- simply buy "Pineapple" products and guarantee this stuff can't touch you (user obsfuciation for all external platforms could be a hard technical challenge, I know - hence the big value if delivered)
obj.friends.filter(x=>{ return x.city=='New York'})
.sort((a, b) => a.age - b.age)
.map(item => ({ name: item.name, age: item.age }));
am I missing something?
At first I was frustrated but my boss said it was actually a perfect sequence, since that "crappy code" did generate a working demo that our future customers loved, which gave us the validation to re-write. And I agree!
LLMs are just another tool in the chest; a curious, lighting fast jr developer with an IQ of 85 who can't learn and needs a memory wipe whenever they make a design mistake.
When I use it knowing its constraints it's a great tool! But yeah if used wrong you are going to make a mess, just like any powerful tool
Oh, also when it broke down and I tried to restart (the data model rewrite) using a context summary, it started going backwards and migrating back to the old data model beacuse it couldn't tell which one was which .. sigh.
Someone once quipped that AI is like a college kid who studied a few programming courses, has access to all of stack overflow, lives in a world where hours go by in the blink of an eye, and has an IQ of 80 and is utterly incapable of learning.
Postulate: You cannot define a largest physically describable number.
My assumption is that due to the very nature of Kolmogorov complexity (and other Godel related / halting problem related / self referential descriptions), this is not an answerable or sensible question.
It falls under the same language-enabled recursion problems as:
- The least number that cannot be described in less than twenty syllables. - The least number that cannot be uniquely described by an expression of first-order set theory that contains no more than a googol (10^100) symbols.
Yes, technology is the way we circumvent effort to deliver results (e.g. to live longer, healthier, and with less pain/fear.)
Yes, our civilization rewards and encourages short circuiting effort, depriving us of the basic positive feedback loop of effort to reward.
It's been like this since the invention of the wheel and fire. It's up to us to find and/or create meaningful (and effortful) lives, and it is more sustainable to focus on the path than the destination; every zen text teaches this.
This article started off strong but ended up quippy, spiteful and shallow. Still, I appreciate the effort ;-]
The best analogy I can make is actually surprisingly from a book about romantic love, "Undefended Love" [0] where the PhD psychology author goes on to make this critical point:
We often set ourselves up for failure (e.g. negative self talk after a failed romantic outreach attempt) because it results in our progression into a safe and known pattern. They explain that our brains and emotions are somehow more comfortable with a known outcome, even though it is irrevocably and undeniably a worse outcome, simply because it is safe and known to us.
Thus. self-sabotage keeps us inside our comfort zone.
Imaging if you did win that [product launch, vc pitch, ...] your life gets catapulted into the big, scary unknown. Just quit now so we can be comfortable, easy, and lazy!
[0] by Jett Psaris & Marlena S. Lyons
apparently, I need to make a selection of a search engine to use this.
I would not use this as a replacement for my duckduckgo or google searches simply because of the UX of not being able to type a query and press "enter" as the default.