s0ulphire
s0ulphire on Hacker News
'Temperature' would probably already be close, which controls how much GPT takes low probability (could reasonably be interpreted as confidence?) into account.
Love it! The older kids in the fam regularly revisit this game to recreate the lan battles of old, would love adding these to shake things up a bit :) post up a paypal donation link if you'd like some $$ for your efforts!
I'm no fan of the stock MIUI experience either, especially china-only variants, but with that said...
The bootloader unlock is 7 days and has been for every xiaomi phone I've owned.
You can turn off "Sync" which is xiaomi's backup/sync service if you don't want to sync stuff up to the cloud...
Providing your IMEI / phone number aka "personal info" is standard even across Apple with registering AC+ etc.
There's community roms that remove all the chinese bloatware that comes preinstalled (https://xiaomi.eu/community/) plus add a bunch of new features that make it a pretty awesome experience.
FYI the word you're lookin for is 'vein' :) the other type means conceited/narcissistic.
The assumption that a child can't give consent is based on their lack of understanding of what exactly they're consenting to, same as a drunk person can't give consent for the same reason. So yes, a 16yo seeking out a 12yo to have sex with would be wrong. Or an 18yo with a 14yo. They are not peers.
We may indeed have souls or be eternal; although I call myself atheist, I don't agree with subscribing with 100% certainty to any idea. As CosmicSkeptic points out everyone holds bad ideas without knowing it, and unless you're open to questioning them you'll never find out.
With that said, there is quite literally zero evidence for the existence of a soul, despite it being posited for thousands of years, and increasing evidence that consciousness is simply a product of a sufficiently connected system. I'll draw an analogy to temperature, which isn't "created", but is a simple consequence of two points in space having different energy levels. I'm sure there's a better analogy that could be made, but I think you get the idea.
A follow up question: as a human doesn't start with "knowing" something either and first creates definitions for objects or words, which it then uses to build increasingly abstract concepts that we eventually classify as "knowledge" on the thing, is there anything that would stop LLMs from being able to do the same thing? I fully agree the capability is not there yet, but I can't say what would stop an appropriately designed model from being able to do so myself.
I'll dig up a source in a bit, but there is a critical period of development in which a child must be exposed to language, or they will fail to develop the very core skills that you're suggesting are innate abilities in a person regardless of their upbringing. This is exactly how you learned everything you know; your parents talked to you. Language grants you the ability to define concepts in the first place, without which you have no ability to recognise them as you have no language with which to think about them in the first place. So what specifically differentiates the way your brain learned to classify objects and words from the way a NN does? And what stops a NN from being able to develop concepts based on the relationship of those new definitions in the same way you do? IMO arguably it's just a matter of processing power and configuration of the network.
The question being asked was "what it would mean under this definition of knowing things for a machine learning algorithm to ever know something". Aside from your answer being rude, it's also unhelpful in that it doens't address the question asked and instead relies on reductio ad absurdum to pretend to make a point.
If you'd like to take a crack at a helpful answer, perhaps educate us all on what it WOULD take for you to consider a NN to actually "know" something in the same way that we say a human or other sentient animal does.
Serious question, does anyone really struggle with staying under their data limit anymore? I pay $28AUD a month and get 85GB, and I use about 20 of that per month?
You do realise the definition is "beautiful or delightful in a way that seems removed from everyday life"...seems like you're set on defining "magical" as "related to druids" lol, when nobody is using the term in that way.
Sorry that's my bad, I meant *Fiddler not wireshark. Fiddler makes it a piece of cake to decrypt the extra tls, leaving you with just the encrypted data you were sending.
The data is successfully encrypted before it's sent (which you can verify with wireshark). What exactly are your concerns, given that the data isn't encrypted locally in the first place? And seriously with the question...what do you think is more likely, that the tiny team of 6 invested a ton of time reinventing the wheel with a custom in-house AES implementation, OR that they used any of the readily available and extremely well tested libraries? SMH
It does when the position of each sensor relative to the position of the others matters. On earth that's trivial, but if you're 1.5 million kms out in space you could imagine this being significantly more difficult.
Not to mention, each of these 100 units would require the same shielding from radiation as the giant one does for the same reasons. We chose L2 for a very good reason; where are these 100 going to go? What are the odds that each one will end up where it needs to be x100 attempts?
https://youtu.be/qQKhIK4pvYo?t=411Why do slow-mo lightning shots clearly show the opposite then? Unless you're referring to "conventional current", which is about as pedantic as you can get given that that's an obsolete and incorrect school of thought based around flow of positive charges before electrons were discovered.
It sounds like what you're describing is the end goal in the "hierarchy of competence", where "unconscious competence" is the last step.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competenceThat is the ideal goal, but I don't think the two ideas are exclusive. Take the case of learning a new skill like Chess. At the start you employed some sort of system to learn; that system is your own personal 'mental model' that you've constructed (whether consciously or not) to learn this new thing.
How long does it take you to reach unconscious mastery in chess? Once you reach that level of mastery, looking back would you say there was a different system you could have employed to reach that goal faster? What if you shared this new system with a beginner and told them "use this model to learn, not the one that seems intuitive to you now".
I think that's all a mental model is: recognising that other people who are better at the thing you're trying to do, have come up with a way to learn it faster than you're capable of intuiting as a beginner. I think it would be quite hubristic to assume you couldn't save any time by employing these ideas, or that your initial ideas are so close to the best approach that learning about another model is a waste of time.
Sure would. Both work (partly) by increasing the communication between different parts of your brain. It's why people will "see" things after auditory stimuli, or vice versa.
Changes at this basic level are temporarily re-writing how your neural network connects to itself, which translates to a change in how you perceive the world at the most fundamental level. It is very different from consciously trying to adopt a different perspective, as in that case there is no change to the underlying network processing everything that makes you yourself.
Some people find experiencing this malleability extremely upsetting and disconcerting, as it destroys the idea of your "self" being something concrete. This understanding is the oft-referenced "ego death", and for sure it is both exciting and terrifying.
Not many places will try a brute force attack directly on a login interface, but if your database is leaked the definitely. Nothing to rate limit an attacker then
So my understanding is that cases are rising due to Delta (even amongst vaccinated), which correlates with every other report I've seen. However I couldn't see in this report, what percentage of reported deaths (14) were unvaccinated vs single/double jab recipients?
The takeaway seems to be that, when borders open in Australia for my case, I'm very likely to catch covid; I don't so much mind catching it as long as I don't end up in the ICU or dead over it though (and ditto for everyone else in the country of course).
> I'm simply stating that my personal observation supports what a scientific study says. When there is evidence to back up an anecdote it ceases to be an anecdote.
That's actually a really good example of confirmation bias :) it can be a real sneaky logical fallacy! In this case you have no controls in place to verify the what, why, or how of those people's infections, but because it matches what you think it should you've accepted it as further evidence that confirms the proposition of the study. Anecdotal evidence remains anecdotal whether or not it correlates with a position in either direction.
Yes exactly right, which is what the Israeli data has indicated. It's not a huge decrease, but there's a definitive slow decrease in efficacy - worth noting it's nearly entirely against the Delta variant again though. So even though 2 shots will continue to keep you moderately safe, the argument is that there's no good reason to not get a booster (just like a flu shot every year).
edit: to quote specifics from the study
> Our findings are in line with findings from the randomized trial of the BNT162b2 vaccine, which showed a reduction in vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection from 96% in the first 2 months after vaccination to 84% at 4 to 7 months after vaccination, when averaged over all age groups combined
Worth remembering that applying anecdotal experience to an entire world population in terms of generating statistics is unlikely to be accurate, and very much at risk of confirmation bias.
Most vaccines are only 65% efficacious in preventing infection from Delta. So even amongst 100% double vaccinated crowds, 1 in 3 will contract covid if exposed.
The real difference is the reduction in serious complications and hospitalization and death. Going off stats from my state (NSW in Australia), 78% of people hospitalized were completely unvaccinated. 19% had one shot. 2% had both shots. Those numbers are really, really hard to argue against IMO.
edit: I should add, it's even worse when you consider that 80% of our state is 100% vaccinated, meaning that the 78% figure above is true despite being from a pool that makes up only 20% of our state's population.
Not to detract from your overall point, which I agree with, but I'd like to clarify "it's still moving" =/= alive. I grew up in a coastal town in Australia so fished a heck of a lot, you can completely sever the head and the body can still "swim" or move around for quite a while - especially in salt water.
This seems to be why the 3rd step is necessary in Ike Jime even after crushing the fish's brain.
As a side note too, my personal opinion would be that thinking of fish as feeling pain in the same way we do, is anthropomorphizing them too much. I've seen fish missing half their body see some food float past and still try to swim after it and eat it. They clearly don't have the same capacity to process incoming signals as we do, nor does that processing result in anything close to the same cognitive stress. A man cut in half wouldn't worry about food no matter how hungry he might be.
To take the absurd extreme example, I wonder how much "suffering" I'm inflicting on the worms or insects that I put on the hooks.
FYI he no longer holds that position
> Light seems like it slows down in dense media, but light always propagates at the fastest possible speed for any physical thing. The slow down occurs when the light gets briefly absorbed by atoms and then re-emitted in the same direction.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Sixty Symbols (aka nottinghamscience) did at least 2 videos on this where they expressly pointed out that this is widely pushed but totally incorrect? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHN0ZWE5bk
I'm very new to the stocks game so excuse what's probably a simple question, but would vindicating the short-sellers require TSLA shares to drop back down to around $180-190 or whatever level they were at before the shorts were in place?