numitus

Can someone explain, why people understanding is important? Proof 1+1=2 was created in XX centery, but people before and now use it without understanding, use it as axiom. In computer science, a lot of people use CAP-theorem without understanding their proof, because we know someone else prove it and verified it.

I agree that sending someone a text you haven't read and understood is a sign of poor skills, much like forwarding someone else's message that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. But we have to acknowledge that the market for speechwriters and corporate copywriters has existed for centuries. Surely you don't think a president is being dishonest when delivering a speech that someone else wrote for them?

The assumption is that if an LLM is incapable of playing chess—a game with a relatively small number of pieces, clear and simple rules, and perfect information—even after reading a hundred thousand books on chess, then it is fundamentally incapable of managing an army or a factory. This is because those scenarios involve more 'pieces,' incomplete and fuzzy information, and implicit rules that need to be deduced independently. It doesn't matter whether it has tools or not. It's simply that running tests with chess is cheap, whereas testing with an army or writing a browser from scratch is quite time-consuming and expensive.

This is just some sort of Luddism all over again. Sorry to be blunt, but nobody cares about your proofreading, because your text will most likely be read by another AI anyway. Your boss doesn't care about what's more convenient for you either. If you generate X amount of value for the company and your colleague generates 3X, you'll soon find yourself out on the street. It's like saying you don't like Googling things and instead prefer spending the whole day at the library reading through articles and books. LLMs are incredibly powerful tools, and everyone's task right now is to learn how to maximize their productivity by leveraging their advantages and mitigating their flaws, rather than urging people not to use AI. The genie is out of the bottle, and the world will never be the same.

The assumption is that if an LLM is incapable of playing chess—a game with a relatively small number of pieces, clear and simple rules, and perfect information—even after reading a hundred thousand books on chess, then it is fundamentally incapable of managing an army or a factory. This is because those scenarios involve more 'pieces,' incomplete and fuzzy information, and implicit rules that need to be deduced independently. It doesn't matter whether it has tools or not. It's simply that running tests with chess is cheap, whereas testing with an army or writing a browser from scratch is quite time-consuming and expensive.

This is called a benchmark. We run a calculation of Pi to evaluate a computer's performance, but we don't allow the script to download a ready-made solution. When we evaluate a runner, we don't let them use a bicycle. When we evaluate a new LLM, we don't allow it to send a request to a team of programmers, so using a chess engine for an LLM is cheating

Tests are often conducted under restricted conditions. For example, elementary school students aren't given calculators in math class, or during an interview, you are asked what encapsulation is and aren't allowed to use Google. The chess test effectively demonstrates the reasoning capabilities of an LLM without relying on brute force, because a human is incapable of calculating trillions of combinations yet plays chess successfully. This test is necessary because many complex problems cannot be solved by brute force, such as managing a business or playing Heroes 3. Therefore, we can make the assumption that if an LLM can play chess at a grandmaster level without brute force, it means it will be able to command an army or manage production.

I am bad in chess game by itself like 1200 ELO, but I can write Programm and win player with 2600 ELO. Does it mean I am pro chess gamer?

Why do people consider the use of targeted advertising in elections to be unethical, while using the same advertising to push people into buying things is considered ethical? Personally, I find all advertising unethical because it is an attempt to exploit the brain's vulnerabilities for the benefit of whoever paid for the ad.

I don't understand the panic among peoples. Yes, we've found ourselves in an extraordinary situation where powerful hacking tools have emerged, and that poses a threat. But vulnerabilities are specific code errors. Once we use AI to find and fix all of these errors, threats like this will cease to exist. AI isn't capable of finding vulnerabilities indefinitely, because there is a finite number of them anyway.

Sounds like assembler Friday. Or manual memory management Friday.

It's a strict legal requirement for all cars

automatic speed control in the Toyota Yaris works absolutely terribly. On the highway, it constantly misreads signs and suggests driving at 40 km/h instead of 120 km/h. It can even interpret a 10-ton weight limit sign as a 10 km/h speed limit!

And you can't turn off the audio warning, so I've just gotten used to it and now I ignore it.

The answer is simple: high population density. The more densely people live, the more effective public transport is.

In every country, if your parents are scientists, you will be in average smarter, than if your parents are peasants.

> Even simple features like height are thought to have ~12k variables.

But you wouldn't deny that there are groups of people who are tall and groups who are short.

That’s a pretty weak argument. What percentage of people actually have the qualifications to understand and verify a research paper? And how much can you even trust the raw data? At the end of the day, it’s just a matter of faith—whether you choose to believe the guy in the church or the guy at the university.

But it's a proven fact. Less educated people are poorer. The less educated tend to have more children. And children who grow up in poor families receive a lower quality of education.

What is wrong with eugenics, aside from the fact that it was used by the Nazis? Abortions for medical reasons are common in almost all countries, and that is a form of eugenics.

You may disagree with what this film shows, but the results of the last US election speak for themselves."

I’m not talking about difficulty; I’m talking about uniqueness—uniqueness for me personally. There are people who spend their whole lives designing bridges. I, on the other hand, have been writing software for 15 years, and almost every task I encounter is unlike the previous one. I’m not saying it’s difficult, but solving it requires gaining new experience that will be useless for future tasks. Sometimes, I have to do something similar to a previous task, but in 90 percent of cases, I first need to create documentation on how it currently works, figure out how to turn a task description consisting of a 15-word headline into a set of concrete actions, and then test it.

Incorrect analogy. Bridge construction is a clearly algorithmic process. All bridges resemble each other, and from an engineering perspective, designing one is not rocket science. Construction itself is a set of well-studied steps that can be easily calculated. If I were to write my operating system 100 times, I could give an estimate accurate to within 10%, but every task I’ve ever done in life is unique, and I have nothing to compare it to except intuitive judgments. Returning to bridges: there is 1% of projects that are unique, and their design can take decades, while construction might not even begin

I watched a video on the Vertasium channel, and I got the impression that this story is completely different from the story of PFAS. The actual links to diseases are very weak; it wasn't even labeled as carcinogenic, but rather listed as possibly carcinogenic. I have a theory that this scandal was caused by the company itself because its patent was expiring, and if not for the scandal, competitors would have been able to use this extremely effective herbicide.

Crypto is 99% gambling, tax evasion scam, sanction evasion, steal energy on mining, or financing criminal. I suppose big countries may totally forbid it quite soon.

Unfortunately, all such calculations are egocentric. People assume that everyone can use solar panels for 13 days 2 weeks, and when needed, we’ll just get electricity from the grid. But what they don’t take into account is that when there’s load today but none tomorrow, the grid becomes unstable. 2) This also increases costs. You might save electricity consumption in 14 times, but your expenses for grid electricity can increase in 14 times, because the grid still needs to be maintained — staff must be kept at power plants to ensure you can be supplied with 100% of your energy at any moment.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of ideology in the issue of restricting car traffic in cities, for example, the Netherlands is often cited as an example, but they forget that it is one of the most motorized countries in the world (80% of families have a car, and 33% have two), and has one of the densest networks of motorways in the world, and 78% of trips in the Netherlands are made by car, and the average distance of a bicycle trip is only 5 kilometers. I do not argue that local restrictions or a ban on cars, especially in the center, make life more comfortable, but this does not mean that it is necessary to restrict it everywhere.

I often ride a bike, but it is generally surprising that after a century of development of the car, the creation of comfortable climate control systems, noise insulation and multimedia, I am seriously asked to take children to school in the rain, wind or snow on a bike. For me, this sounds like regression

The problem is, as my wife says, accounting is a very creative field. Depending on how you calculate it, the cost of renewable energy can vary by a factor of ten. I suppose that if it were profitable, big businesses would have a monopoly on green energy and installed solar panels and batteries instead of offering them to homeowners.

AI system manufacturers want to sell their products by advertising their superhuman reliability, but they don't want to take responsibility for any mistakes. I should mention that I don't have any Tesla cars in my environment, but a friend of mine claimed in 2017 that the car was capable of fully autonomous and safe driving without human intervention. It's interesting how advertising can distort the essence of technology in people's eyes.

My parents have no washing machine in 80s, because it cost 1/4 of yearly salary(USSR)

Please read about Bayes' theorem. If 50% of criminals use the os, and 1% of population it is goodnpoint to check any the OS owner. The same way Police Will check your id if you Wear robbery mask, or sell small packets on the Street.

to return production to the United States, it is necessary to reduce the level of wages and consumption to Chinese level