d_tr

Nope. No gatekeeping. I have been the exact opposite all my life and you could not be more wrong. But it's true that most AI usage is not by people who seek to learn and grow, no matter their background. It's just morons. So fuck them and fuck Sam Altman saying we have a "shared interest".

Edit: To be fair, I could have worded my earlier comment differently.

No he isn't. Most AI "utilization" is from idiots asking stupid stuff and doing stupid projects. They have all the resources they need for serious stuff. Fuck them.

"A Course in Modern Mathematical Physics: Groups, Hilbert Space and Differential Geometry" by Peter Szekeres has several chapters on linear algebra early on, starting with sets and groups and including tensors (which you absolutely need for QM).

I loved it.

I wish I could upvote this more than once.

As much as I hate all the moronic garbage people do with A.I., it can be used for good like every piece of technology. In any case though, it can't be "banned" or stopped, only regulated. So we just have to deal with it.

Do they? Genuine question, because I don't see how.

The strenghts and weaknesses of LLMs are changing, so starting a long-term project like a PL with them in mind sounds like a good way to end up with something obsolete before it is even usable.

How and why do they get nerfed? To save money?

I guess I feel better about the carbon footprint of me saying "thank you" to GPT now.

I woke up miserably at 6:00 before work and read this as I was drinking coffee. It very literally made my whole day!

Meanwhile I am just impressed that we have models that write better than most native speakers, at least English and Greek... OTOH I like to write my code and my text myself, so I have no reason to get pissed when LLMs fuck up.

If you do not even read code (the fact that you don't write any is clear), then what do you do?

I got a c3 pro a few weeks ago and you definitely can turn the lighting off. Don't remember whether it was through cycling or some other combo but you can. Did you look at the manual?

It doesn't matter whether the model assumes bits, pulleys, elves or whatever, as long as it does a better job at describing physical reality than whatever exists at the time anyway. People will try and very probably succeed in providing alternative formalism anyway.

All that matters is whether it facilitates reasoning towards the goal.

Can't these features be toggled?

> As software subtends to becoming more and more "solved" ...

Really? Maybe if we do not care about robustness, elegance, coherence, consistency and generally anything beyond making a buck and leaving more waste behind... sure!

> This is 7 years old.

Yeah, I actually totally forgot to check the date...

I use Notepad from time to time for quick notes and I have noticed exactly zero friction added to this "workflow". Not sure what you are talking about.

Not having an extra language to deal with and so many features being just a flag away is why I decided to go with QtWidgets for the GUI of a project I am working on at work. And it is so nice to use despite being very old. For the graphically intensive parts I am just using Vulkan. I understand this might not be enough for all types of GUIs though and just wish QtWidgets had some sort of GPU acceleration.

I thought that if you have some idea about how hardware works, it is kind of more or less obvious whether something is synthesizable or not.

> but we’d be ruled forever by ageless ghouls.

We all know what the ruled do when they get really pissed. The prospective ghouls know it very well too.

Exactly... Nothing can stop the masses. Plus, we have laws that can change and adapt.

Imagine the kind of garbage that some people consider "robust, working code"...

I'd reframe it as a stupid game..

Get a flip phone. Being reachable and able to reach is good, and you'll still get all the other benefits.

For me, being able to visualize 4D would imply that I can picture four mutually perpendicular axes, something which I find completely impossible for me to do. And I thought it is impossible for any human brain. It would be fascinating if I am wrong.

You have a really sad view on what constitutes a waste of time.

I suspected it would be some feature of this moronic joke of a language and it seems I was right.