Serdan @ Serdan @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

257

Joined

2 yr. ago

Is the text unreadable on purpose?

I am not sure of the relevance of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter is the cravings of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter

Yeah, totally. Repeating the same nonsensical sentence over and over is also how I converse. 🙄

It's fine if you think so, but then it's a pointless argument over definitions.

You can't have a conversation with autocomplete. It's qualitatively different. There's a reason we didn't have this kind of code generation before LLM's.

Adversus solem ne loquitor.

Does AlphaGo understand go? How about AlphaStar?

When I say LLM's can understand things, what I mean is that there's semantic information encoded in the network. A demonstrable fact.

You can disagree with that definition, but the point is that it's absolutely not just autocomplete.

I think in many cases the pants don't fit. Men wear generally sucks in my experience. Some time ago I got a pair of shorts with a good fit and I was amazed that I didn't need a belt.

There's a paragraph about waist height in this article: https://www.ft.com/content/e7956680-b399-4e26-9455-741c7c1b3441

I can tell GPT to do a specific thing in a given context and it will do so intelligently. I can then provide additional context that implicitly changes the requirements and GPT will pick up on that and make the specific changes needed.

It can do this even if I'm trying to solve a novel problem.

GPT can write and edit code that works. It simply can't be true that it's solely doing language patterns with no semantic understanding.

To fix your analogy: the Spanish speaker will happily sing along. They may notice the occasional odd turn of phrase, but the song as a whole is perfectly understandable.

Edit: GPT can literally write songs that make sense. Even in Spanish. A metaphor aiming to elucidate a deficiency probably shouldn't use an example that the system is actually quite proficient at.

I don't understand why that's important. The officer is just a biological camera. They're there to document what you did wrong.

If your car was reported stolen, then you document that and get the ticket canceled. I don't see how the presence of a police officer changes anything about that.

I don't have a problem with the owner getting a ticket if someone else was driving. I also, again, don't see how that's relevant. It's not like the police officer is going to remember who was in the car.

The camera ticketing for something legal is a technical issue that should be fixed.

Why?

That doesn't sound right. The accuser is the state regardless, no?

https://thegradient.pub/othello/

LLMs are neural networks and are absolutely capable of understanding.

It's liberals who keep insisting that trickle down economics is good for the economy actually.

I'd be interested in seeing if there's any difference between liberals and actual leftists. I'd assume so because liberals aren't egalitarian, but there may not be a measurable difference.

Now do socialists.

Yes, you need to read code to understand it. If else statements can also do the job of a switch, so the exact same argument applies.

PHP is the only language in existence with a left associative ternary operator. Ignoring PHP, the operator has worked exactly the same way for decades. And even PHP has now fixed the operator.

I don't think it's reasonable to avoid a very commonly supported pattern just because a single badly designed language implemented it wrong.

How is it unsafe?

In the given example I'd probably use a switch / match expression, but ternaries are usually more flexible than switches and I don't think it's an issue to write a nested ternary instead of if else statements.

I'm lucky for not seeing something that doesn't happen?