If you're blending it up into a powder anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to add the paprika at the end? Does adding it before baking actually make a difference?
Ask yourself why you're donating in the first place. Is it so that good journalism can continue to exist regardless of who gets to see it? Is it to give everyone access to good journalism regardless of their ability to pay? Is it so that the journalists can continue producing content for you to consume yourself? Maybe it's something else?
If the company is no longer providing what you expect from them, then that's a good reason to stop donating.
We're assuming that you're talking to someone who's willing to have a discussion in good faith.
You'd first need to know why that isn't a sufficiently solid answer. Are they looking for a perfect solution? Because I'm pretty sure there isn't one. What we want is an improvement over the status quo, and sometimes an overall improvement necessitates a worse experience in certain areas.
The very first response I gave said you just have to reframe state.
And I said "am augmented state space would make it Markovian". Is that not what you meant by reframing the state? If not, then apologies for the misunderstanding. I do my best, but I understand that falls short sometimes.
I'm not familiar with the term "beam" in the context of LLMs, so that's not factored into my argument in any way. LLMs generate text based on the history of tokens generated thus far, not just the last token. That is by definition non-Markovian. You can argue that an augmented state space would make it Markovian, but you can say that about any stochastic process. Once you start doing that, both become mathematically equivalent. Thinking about this a bit more, I don't think it really makes sense to talk about a process being Markovian or not without a wider context, so I'll let this one go.
nitpick that makes communication worse
How many readers do you think know what "Markov" means? How many would know what "stochastic" or "random" means? I'm willing to bet that the former is a strict subset of the latter.
It's in reference to your complaint about the imprecision of "stochastic process". I'm not disagreeing that molecular diffusion is a stochastic process. I'm saying that if you want to use "Markov process" to describe a non-Markovian stochastic process, then you no longer have the precision you're looking for and now molecular diffusion also falls under your new definition of Markov process.
That's basically like saying that typical smartphones are square because it's close enough to rectangle and rectangle is too vague of a term. The point of more specific terms is to narrow down the set of possibilities. If you use "square" to mean the set of rectangles, then you lose the ability to do that and now both words are equally vague.
Everyone's weird in their own ways. It's just that one of them is trying to convince people that weird is bad while simultaneously trying to court their votes.
Why does everyone keep calling them Markov chains? They're missing all the required properties, including the eponymous Markovian property. Wouldn't it be more correct to call them stochastic processes?
Edit: Correction, turns out the only difference between a stochastic process and a Markov process is the Markovian property. It's literally defined as "stochastic process but Markovian".
I find it amusing that everyone is answering the question with the assumption that the premise of OP's question is correct. You're all hallucinating the same way that an LLM would.
LLMs are rarely trained on a single source of data exclusively. All the big ones you find will have been trained on a huge dataset including Reddit, research papers, books, letters, government documents, Wikipedia, GitHub, and much more.
I would argue that there is a bidirectional casual relationship. Having more money gives you more power because you can directly spend that money to do things. More power means you can better influence people to give you their money.
We're not at a point yet where this is a concern, so still on the brainstorming phase of how to do this.
I think the main concern I have is the addictive side of the internet that's enabled by their recommendation systems and infinite scrolling, so that's what I would try to block. For example, allow free reign on YouTube, but you have to specifically search for what you want to see.
There's also the question of privacy, and whether we should be keeping track of and checking their browsing histories. I'm currently leaning towards yes, while also making sure that they're aware of what we're doing. There's value in letting them make their own mistakes and learning from them, but that only applies to things that they can learn and easily recover from.
https://mander.xyz/post/19090429
Like this