Ive never seen these before and I'm enthralled! The music and visual style reminds me a lot of Cruelty Squad. Is there an accepted name for this "genre"? It's almost like pre-AI slop but with a pedal-to-the-floor surrealism that elevates it tremendously.
It gets worse actually. You can define a number system using any power of 2 amount of i-like units in a similar relationship to quaternions using the Cayley-Dickson construction
Fascinatingly, you lose some property of the algebra at each step. Quaternions aren't commutative: ABC != CBA. Octonians aren't associative: (AB)C != A(BC). Once you get into 16 i's with subscripts, it really gets crazy.
For all the sudden word scholars here: there is no second word "master" that's spelled, pronounced, and written exactly the same as the other one but is entirely unrelated to the concept of master\slave. All modern meanings of the word master derive from the same root: magister, meaning an authority or teacher.
A "master recording" is the authority, the base copy from which all others are duplicated. They aren't called "slave" copies, although the primary use of the terms in computing did originally use those 2 words. Also as someone else pointed out, you don't even really make copies of git branches in the same way as audio so the term is misapplied.
Main is also a bad name, unless you're working on a solo project with only 1 main branch and some features. As soon as you start collaborating with other people, you should really have individual dev branches or "forks" (be honest, 90% of you aren't rawdogging git straight from the CLI, there's a forge website involved as hub) to work on, with an integration\testing "fork"\branch to combine work and a release branch for final code, with each discrete release tagged.
People are ragging on the AI art, but the message is also bland pseudo-mystic instagram-motivational word spew. Many religions and philosophies teach things like this, but even real quotes are reduced to pithy candy aphorisms when taken out of context like this.
Like it definitely is trying to riff on the genre of Zen Pencils.
And funny enough, that Thoreau quote is more in line with global views on happiness: the pursuit of it is in some ways the root of it's nonexistence. When we focus on making a better and simpler world for all, happiness often follows.
If you were trying to show another species that you were intelligent, sending basic shapes isn't a terrible way to demonstrate understanding of some abstract ideas. Fascinating to consider what they're "saying" with these.
The metaphor is comparing the idea of loyalty, a concept vitally important to the ideology of fascism, with the LLM trait of consistency. An LLM is highly consistent, so much so that common patterns in its output can be used to spot generated artifacts. However it is not "loyal" because loyalty is about being inconsistent in one's "beliefs" (expressed statements of knowledge) but consistent to a moment-to-moment truth defined by an authority figure.
You got insulted because you're debating in a way that seems catered towards "winning" an internet argument instead of trying to understand what WoodScientist was saying: that a fascist LLM would be difficult because it would require constant retraining to keep up with the ever-shifting fascist narrative. You've never even addressed this point, just repeatedly doubled down that because he said "loyalty" instead of "responding in line with the currert beliefs of the ruling party which change on a daily basis" that the entire argument is invalid and therefore it's "easy to train a reactionary LLM." You also keep confusing reactionary and fascist.
And I neither did a "drive by insult" nor did I "run away into the night." Though i will now rather than continue wasting my time on this. just came back to correct you yet again, and offer an actual ad hominem for you to compare against.
The metaphor was the part you were being a pedant about.
the LLMs actually stand by their principles much better than fascists
If the audience knows how LLMs work internally, then they know they don't have "loyalty," just stochastic processes. If the audience didn't know that, your pithy "aktually that's incorrect" wouldn't teach them anything correct, but would cause confusion because it sounds like you're denying the metaphor.
Also, it's not an ad hominem to say that you are acting like an LLM: with poor reading comprehension and an overly-literal interpretation. That's an observation of your unproductive behavior. An ad hominem would be insulting you or name-calling with unrelated info, such as calling you "stupid like an LLM."
It isn't a logical fallacy to be called out on your bullshit, even if it hurts your feelings.
This process is called Flanderization, whereby a character on a long running show becomes a self-parody as their most distinctive traits and behaviors are amplified again and again. It's named for a popular side character Ned Flanders, from the show the Simpsons. Though arguably Ned undergoes more permanent personal growth than any other character on the show.
🧐: 0 is the origin of time, the big bang (if you believe in that kind if thing)
The problem then is figuring out when earth (and then human) time starts, but we can just add some arbitrary offsets that feel right and everyone agrees on.
It isn't just about intuition as randomly judged by how you or anyone else feels about it. Humans do a lot of things on 0 to 100 and 0 to 10 scales. Literally the basis of the metric system. But all measurements are arbitrary comparisons to some target object: "the meter".
So a temperature scale that closely aligns the 0 to 100 scale to the minimum and maximum commonly experienced surface temperature of the planet we live on is going to feel more natural to use than one which aligns to the boiling point of water, something we don't usually encounter in nature.
Now we do encounter boiling liquids, and hotter, in labs and in kitchens, which is why C probably feels natural to scientists and people who cook a lot.
But the resolution of it isn't particularly intuitive. What does 1\100th of the aggregate temperature of boiling water have to do with anything? Why a linear scale? It takes more energy to add 1°C of heat to an ice cube than to the equivalent amount of 20°C ("room temperature") water.
Measurements are about both precision and repeatability, but also about conveying information in an easily understandable way. Sometimes those goals conflict, particularly when a scale of measurement is used in both informal and formal settings.
"Includes" was the wrong word, its like the opposite of hyperbole here. The range humans can survive in is roughly 0 to 100 in F, the full range of the scale. The range in Centigrade is roughly -17 to 30. It isnt that it "includes" it, the entire useful portion of the meter is dedicated to it.
100F was originally set to roughly human body temperature. 0 was the freezing point of a brine mixture (water, salt, and ammonium) meant to be similar to sea water. It was used because the temperature would self-stabilize at a particular temperature, which was defined as 0 degrees.
That's why its "humanistic," the scale roughly includes the temperature range we can survive in, and provides decent granularity within that range. Metric based everything on pure water, which is pretty arbitrary also, as evidenced by both scales being redefined as more precise and repeatable means of defining measured units have become available.
CodexArcanum @ codexarcanum @lemmy.dbzer0.com Posts 5Comments 279Joined 7 mo. ago
Ive never seen these before and I'm enthralled! The music and visual style reminds me a lot of Cruelty Squad. Is there an accepted name for this "genre"? It's almost like pre-AI slop but with a pedal-to-the-floor surrealism that elevates it tremendously.