Though the original already consisted mostly of bold claims without any implementation or data to back it up, this one seems to be only marketing fluff.
The problem is that the llm don’t learn to play moves from a position, the internet archives contain only game records. They might be building something to represent position internationally but it will not be automatically activated with an encoded chess position.
Sadly, my new gym assigns keys in numerical locker order. The Google Reviews are full of lamentations about it. However, the gym is right next door, so I am inclined to overlook these and other shortcomings.
Logistically, it makes sense for them, as it presumably cuts down on maintenance and cleaning. But it is super-annoying to squeeze past several other sweaty folk when there are two entire locker corridors empty and adjacent.
SMT solvers such as Z3 and CVC5 tend to be good at theory solving (the T in SMT) but not so good at handling quantification. OTOH, the ATPs (= automatic theorem provers) used in 'hammers, like E, Spass, Vampire, have the opposite strengths and weaknesses: they are good at handling quantification, but not so good at theory solving. Moreover, all widely used ATPs tend to be for first-order classical logic, while Lean is based on higher-orders constructive logic. So there is still a gap to be bridged.
There are subjective experiences (especially seeking to connect with God in order to become a more virtuous person) that must be undertaken with all one's heart in order to verify for one's self. We are created with the ability to self-evolve one's self with the help of the universe and its/our Creator, but our free will is not trampled upon, even though it would be best for ourself and all those around us.
Yes, the Creator knows what is best for us, but, no, It has given us free will and honors it until we beseech It to help us.
If you make a prayer with all your heart asking for the Creator to take Its Spirit (our conscience) back into Itself so that we can cleanse and purify our souls of our vice-oriented ("vice-eous", the opposite of virtuous) tendencies, thereby becoming a friend to all, becoming, by degrees, consumed by compassion and a possessor of wisdom, you will be changed. It is the meaning of the 1st Beatitude ("blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"), and is the prerequisite to (IIRC) the 5th ("blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God").
This is a subjective experience. Most people are too wrapped up in their selfish desires to see how different a person is who has undertaken this process of moral self-evolution. I have met two such purified men (Murshids) and a third (from a different faith) whose teacher was also such a one. I am on the way for a couple of decades now but am not purified, only semi-cleansed. Happiness is different for me; it is a sublime joy, a pleasure to help a person in any small way.
Yet, I am rejected by my family and lifelong friends, but they are only rejecting happiness because their forms of religion (especially those with none at all) reject the path I am on. Our son is an open chess champion (3x!) and our daughter is an accomplished seamstress while still in her teens (Singer 503a is badass). We do not reject any form of religion, but understand that we are all one human race and should care for one another and create peace here on our blessed Earth.
This is the subjective truth that we live but is rejected by nearly all; such is the world we live in, of selfish idiocy and destructive strife. But what we Sufis teach and live is truly the science of the soul. In history, all groundbreaking science is rejected, be it that of Eugene Parker, Boltzman, or even the doctor who found that most stomach ulcers were caused by a simple bacteria. That others reject the truth that we live -- and they can, if they try -- is not a testimony about us, but only about them.
I love you. I have no selfish motive in telling you the truth here. I want nothing from you. I only want for you to be happy, and to spread happiness to all those you experience, by both your actions and explanations. You can verify this for youself, but only if you jump in with both feet.
The great Islamic mystic, Rumi, said 800ish years ago, "The Way goes in."
The truth is that we human beings could be creating a must happier world, but selfishness is ruining it for everyone. There has been talk around HN lately of "mathematical thinking" but who contemplates how we would change things if selfless compassionate service was our systems' intention and goal, instead of their current motive of profit-at-all-costs? We Sufis understand that calculus and understand that it begins with each of us. We inhabit a world that pushes us to be selfish animal-like creatures, when we could instead be humanitarians that care about everyone.
We could create a simulation of such a transformation now, but there is a force within each of us that pushes back against such notions, decrying them as impossible. You will feel that push back as you read the deepest truth in the universe. It will say that I'm crazy or don't know sh_t. Just please remember you are free to choose, and pay close attention to what that negative inner voice says. Perhaps it's not you, and is, as Castaneda's Don Juan explains, a parasite of our mind. We Sufis have a much simpler explanation: there is an enemy within.
Only OpenAI knows for sure, but so many non-tech people I know use ChatGPT for a sounding board for whatever. "My boyfriend sent me this text, how should I respond?" or "Teach me about investing." There are a bunch of people I know that don't use ChatGPT, I'm just surprised at the uptake by people who I didn't think would have as use for it have found it very useful.
I made a suggestion that they may have trained the model to be good at chess to see if it helped with general intelligence, just as training with math and code seems to improve other aspects of logical thinking. Because, after all, OpenAI has a lot of experience with game playing AI. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42145215
We were there before nasty viruses spread. We stopped funding them in July 2020, meaning we were funding it before lockdowns started and just as China was being affected. You truly need to work on your reading comprehension skills before attempting to suggest anyone has errors in anything.
I've seen someone on this site comment to the effect that if they could use a tool like dall-e to generate a picture of "their dog" that looked better than a photo they could take themselves, they would happily take it over a photo.
The future is going to become difficult for people who find value in creative activities, beyond just a raw audio/visual/textual signal at the output. I think most people who really care about a creative medium would say there's some kind of value in the process and the human intentionality that creates works, both for the creator who engages in it and the audience who is aware of it.
In my opinion most AI creative tools don't actually benefit serious creators, they just provide a competitive edge for companies to sell new products and enable more dilettantes to enter the scene and flood us with mediocrity
> Compare that to, like, lexical scoping or parametric polymorphism, which most languages just have by default at this point. They’re almost mathematical facts.
I feel like you could add “do not capture en passant unless it is the only possible move” to the test without changing what it’s trying to prove—if anything, some small permutation like this might even make it a stronger test of “reasoning capability.” (Personally I’m unconvinced of the utility of this test in the first place, but I think it can be reasonably steelmanned.)
When looking at the pre-1914 world, it's amazing how much they tried to introduce (propagate?) artificial total orders: if you have a bishop and a baron over for dinner, who gets served first, that sort of thing.
Why do you think that? InstructGPT was predominantly trained as a next-token predictor on whatever soup of data OpenAI curated at the time. The alignment signal (both RL part and the supervised prompt/answer pairs) are a tiny bit of the gradient.
Your accusation of racism confuses criticizing immutable characteristics with analyzing societal choices. This is a fundamental logical error. :-)
If we discuss German society role in enabling the Third Reich, it is not racism against Germans. If we analyze Japanese society's role in WWII atrocities and unit 731, it is not racist against Japanese people.
These discussions led to positive cultural changes precisely because they focused on changeable behaviors, not ethnicity.
Your Syria comparison actually proves my point. Syrians demonstrated massive resistance to their government - millions chose exile, fought back, or actively protested. In contrast, we see 80%+ support for the war in Russia, limited internal resistance relative to population size, and widespread diaspora support.
The "racist" counterargument appears to be a rhetorical device on your part to shut down legitimate discussion of societal responsibility. It's particularly telling that instead of addressing the evidence (documented support for rapes, patterns of behavior, cultural acceptance of authoritarianism), you jump to accusations of racism.
Each society must face its choices. Germany did. Japan did. Many others have. This isn't about inherent characteristics - it's about changeable behaviors and cultural patterns that enable specific outcomes.
As a final example: In the USA a majority of the actual voters, just a few week ago, elected as president an individual convicted of rape in civil procedure, convicted of business fraud in a court by a jury of it's peers, that refused to rent to people of color, mocked a disabled reporter, simulated oral sex with a microphone in front of children, and tried 44 times to remove a law that protected health care patients with pre-existing conditions.
Do you say these millions do not have any collective responsibility on their decisions, on what was a free election? :-)
You might want to use a programmers editor since almost anything in common use won’t have that problem - Python requires consistent indentation but not tabs. I’d also consider using Ruff or Black to format your code since it’ll make that problem either disappear or instantly obvious based on exactly how it happened.
Those images are certainly impressive, but I certainly don't agree with the statement "equal in quality to those produced by conventional cameras": they're quite obviously lacking in sharpness and color.
> Python is by far the fastest to write, cleanest, more maintainable programming language I know, and that a bit of a runtime performance penalty is a small price to pay when I'm rewarded with significant productivity gains.
> (…)
> Before you ask, no, I did not include Ruby, PHP or any other of the "slow" languages in this benchmark, simply because I don't currently use any of these languages and I wouldn't start using them even if they showed great results on a benchmark.
Why bother with benchmarks, then? You have a very clearly subjective and biased opinion: you like Python and want to keep using it. That’s fine, that’s your prerogative. You don’t have to justify that choice to anyone by pretending to run benchmarks if speed of execution doesn’t matter to you.
> In the title of this article I asked if Python is really that slow. There isn't an objective answer to this question, so you will need to extract your own conclusions based on the data I presented here, or if interested, run your own benchmarks and complement my results with your own.
Especially considering you reached a non-conclusion. Which isn’t even true, there is an objective answer even if your methodology didn’t arrive at an answer.
Though not really a meme, I always found Anatoli Bugorski in the same, amazingly interesting area as the Demon Core accident. (A real life Gordon Freeman?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski
> I know it's only for translation now but how long until "copilot" joins meetings on my behalf?
Well, they have my voice (Teams), they have my image and biometrics (Windows Hello for business), they know everything i do a the computer (Recall) so they can replace me with an AI.
Just think at the next headlines: Microsoft increases the price of Office 365 bundling a new feature: virtual employees.
I understand where you're coming from, and the need to put pieces together so that the image of oneself or their identity is acceptable.
However, while doing that, you're just ignoring the number of killed people. Unfortunately, there's no way to assemble that kind of image of Israel in this situation, where it's not red in blood of Palestinian civilians. Not to say that it's any different on the other side, and not engaging with any justifications for either side - just pointing out that you're ignoring some large and ugly parts of reality in how you represented your view of the situation.
Decent article, why the need for someone to pick up the pitchfork and emphasize their moral compass publicly like this? The comment and ensuing discussion is so pointless.
Ok, my problem is that I don't know just by reading the styles that other contributors wrote, whether they are still relevant, or if the HTML they applied to was changed or removed. They didn't write clean atomic commit, and I can't get them to adhere to some sort of convention.
The other problem is that I don't have a designer and tend to make things ugly given full freedom, but I do want things to have their own visual identity.
The question I'm asking isn't whether hallucinations can be fixed. It's what, if they are not fixed, are the economic consequences for the industry? How necessary is it that LLMs become trustworthy? How much valuation assumes that they will?
Though the original already consisted mostly of bold claims without any implementation or data to back it up, this one seems to be only marketing fluff.