☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
- 3.41K Posts
- 2.39K Comments
22·20 hours agoWhich is the desirable outcome if the government represents the working class and exercises violence against attempts at a capitalist counterrevolution.
Right, and that’s why talk of authoritarianism is infantile. The question that’s actually important is whose interest the government represents.
1·2 days agoTo be fair, only 19% think it’s getting better. The other 30% or so just haven’t noticed much change yet I guess.
Yeah, I’d typically front an app with something like nginx and farm off stuff like rate limiting or tls handling to it instead of having to worry about it in the app itself. The general point in the article is solid though. I’ve started using this sort of heuristic to evaluate libraries as well. I first try to think of how I’d solve the problem conceptually, and then once I work through that and have a good mental model of what I want, I’ll look for libraries and try to find one that’s closest to the way I think about the problem.
What all this illustrates is that the US lacks industrial capacity for maintaining its hegemony. They’ve run through their existing stocks over the past three years, and they’re unable to manufacture weapons at the rate they’re being consumed. As a result, they have to make hard choices regarding which proxies have more value to them.
I find what you generally want is a service bus. For example, if you have common tasks like sending emails, making PDFs, etc. you can create generic services that handle the action, and then call them providing the context such as the document the service should operate on. Meanwhile, actual business logic and the state should absolutely live in a single place.
Wait till you find out how modern economies function.
That’s one thing that’s stayed constant to this day.
should do an AMA on how long it took you
Have some humility and willingness to learn.
I have plenty of willingness to learn from people who have a clue on the subject.
I didn’t say it was the primary function.
You literally tried to argue that evolution doesn’t create complexity if there’s a more efficient path.th.
Then what about Darwin who literally said, “Natural selection is continually trying to economize every part of the organization.” Now please go and read some introductory texts on biology before trying to explain to me why Darwin is wrong. There’s so much going on when it comes to the thermodynamics of living systems and you’re clearly not ready to have a conversation about it.
Again, you’re showing a superficial understanding of the subject here. Natural selection selects for overall fitness, and efficiency is only a small part of equation. For example, plants don’t use the most efficient wavelength for producing energy, they use the one that’s most reliably available. Similarly, living organisms have all kinds of redundancies that allow them to continue to function when they’re damaged. Evolution optimizes for survival over efficiency.
You’re baseless assuming that hydrocephalus causes the brain to lose a substantial amount of its complexity.
Maybe read the actual paper linked there?
But hey neuroscience hasn’t really advanced at all since 1980 right? The brain is totally redundant right? There’s no possible way a critical and discerning person such as yourself could have been taken in by junk science, right?!!
What I linked you is a case study of an actual living person who was missing large parts of their brain and had a relatively normal life. But hey why focus on the actual facts when you can just write more word salad right?
I took issue with specific statements you made that stand apart from the rest of your comment.
You took issue with made up straw man arguments that you yourself made and have fuck all with what I actually said. Then you proceeded to demonstrate that you don’t actually understand the subject you’re debating. You might as well start believing in the astrology, crystals, and energy healing. At least those interests will make you seem fun and quirky instead of just a sad debate bro.
Im simply stating that you’re way off base when you claim that they appear to operate using the same principles or that all evidence suggests the human mind is nothing more than a probability machine.
I literally said these things, and you never gave any actual counter argument to either of them.
You’re betraying your own ignorance about neuroscience. The complexity of the brain is absolutely linked with its ability to reason and we have plenty of evidence to show that. The evolutionary process does not just create needless complexity if there is a more efficient path.
You’re betraying your ignorance of how biology works and illustrating that you have absolutely no business debating this subject. Efficiency is not the primary fitness function for evolution, it’s survivability. And that means having a lot of redundancy baked into the system. Here’s a concrete example for you of just how much of the brain isn’t actually essential for normal day to day function. https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116
This is such a silly statement especially when you’ve been claiming that both the brain and AI appear to work using the same principles.
There’s nothing silly in stating that the underlying principles are similar, but we don’t understand a lot of the mechanics of the brain. If you truly can’t understand such basic things there’s little point trying to have a meaningful discussion.
I don’t really care about your arguments concerning embodiment because they’re so beside the point when you just blowing right by the most basic principles of neuroscience.
That’s literally the whole context for this thread, it just doesn’t fit with the straw man you want to argue about.
A ruthless criticism of that exists includes the very researchers whose work you’re taking at face value.
Whose work am I taking at face value specifically? You’re just spewing nonsense here without engaging with anything I’m saying.
21·7 days agothank you for gracing us with an example of how a thirteen year old understands the world
I suspect that something like LLMs is part of our toolkit, but I agree that this can’t be the whole picture. Ideas like neurosymbolic AI might be on the right track here. The idea here is to leverage LLMs at parsing and classifying noisy input data, which they’re good at, then use a symbolic logic engine to operate on the classified data. Something along these lines is much more likely to produce genuine intelligence. We’re still in very early stages of both understanding how the brain works and figuring out how to implement artificial reasoning.
LLMs and the human mind operate on categorically different principles.
A bold statement given that we don’t actually understand how the brain operates exactly and what algorithms that would translate into.
Where the straw man?
The straw man is you continuing to argue against equating LLMs with the functioning of the brain, something I never said here.
All the verbiage used to describe neural network models has little to do with how the brain actually works.
You appear to be conflating the implementation details of how the brain works with the what it’s doing in a semantic sense. There is zero evidence that all the complexity of the brain is inherent to the way our reasoning functions. Again, we don’t have a full understanding of how the brain accomplishes tasks like reasoning. It may be a lot more complex than what LLMs do, or it may not be. We do not know.
Finally, none of this has anything to do with the point I was actually making which is regarding embodiment. You decided to ignore that to focus on braying about tech companies and LLMs instead.
the wasp nest has really come out in the comments here 🤣
Yeah, like how do they not see this project as being strategic for them.