What to name a baby is such a common and profitable search query, there must be so many SEO spam websites targeting it. I wonder if that’d make the data lean towards that too.
>“There is a grave danger that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance.”
What does von Neumann mean here? Why is it bad that it will develop along the line of least resistance? Does von Neumann advice that working on "harder" problems is more beneficial for TCS? Could not one argue that we should be solving away low hanging fruits first?
I am not sure if I am understanding von Neumann's quote nor this article properly. I would love to hear some simpler explanation (I am a new BSc. CS graduate).
This is how I see it: you can work on mathematics from two different levels. There is more direct level, which is the formal system, and there is more indirect level which are the intuitions behind the formal system.
If you look at new theories (let's say you are starting to study topology, or group theory) they start from some definitions/axioms that seem to come from "nowhere", but they are in fact a product of working and perfectioning a language for the intuitions that we have in mind. Once we set for the correct descriptions, then there are a lot of consequences and new results that come from interaction almost entirely with the formal system.
The interactions with the formal system is the path of least resistance.
The power of mathematics is that once you figure out a correct formalization of the intuitions, using just the formal system allows you to get a lot of information. That is why sometimes people identify mathematics with just the formal system.
To take it one step further, mathematical ideas which do not nicely fit within one of the highly developed theories then feels underbaked and less attractive to other mathematicians.
Knuth thinking about algorithms led to all these research questions about combinatorics, that have turned out to be very interesting, but are much more messy and disjointed results.
It becomes clearer if you check out the entire quote from von Neumann:
.. mathematical ideas originate in empirics, although the genealogy is sometimes long and obscure. But, once they are so conceived, the subject begins to live a peculiar life of its own and is better compared to a creative one, governed by almost entirely aesthetical motivations, than to anything else and, in particular, to an empirical science. There is, however, a further point which, I believe, needs stressing.
As a mathematical discipline travels far from its empirical source, or still more, if it is a second and third generation only indirectly inspired by ideas coming from "reality," it is beset with very grave dangers. It becomes more and more purely aestheticizing more and more purely l'art pour l'art. This need not be bad, if the field is surrounded by correlated subjects, which still have closer empirical connections, or if the discipline is under the influence of men with an exceptionally well-developed taste. But there is a grave danger that the subject will develop along the line of least resistance, that the stream, so far from its source, will separate into a multitude of insignificant branches, and that the discipline will become a disorganized mass of details and complexities. In other words, at a great distance from its empirical source, or after much "abstract" inbreeding, a mathematical subject is in danger of degeneration. At the inception the style is usually classical; when it shows signs of becoming baroque, then the danger signal is up. It would be easy to give examples, to trace specific evolutions into the baroque and the very high baroque, but this, again, would be too technical.
In any event, whenever this stage is reached, the only remedy seems to me to be rejuvenating return to the source: the reinjection of more or less directly empirical ideas. I am convinced that this was a necessary condition to conserve the freshness and the vitality of the subject and that this will remain equally true in the future.
My guess is that von Neumann worried that it develops in directions that people happen to find interesting, instead of in directions that are important by some objective external measure.
Reading the comment section, I am really happy and uplifted that people expose Mozilla's wrongdoing by trying to look for ways to add <<ads>> into the browser.
And I am curious, is anybody aware of a good alternative browser or even just an alternative way to what Mozilla should be doing instead?
I use brave mostly but I am not sure if their ad blocking is any good under the hood or not... Seeing a company like Mozilla behaving like this, I honestly don't know who or what to trust anymore...
Servo is being worked on as an alternative (after Mozilla excised it in one of the dumbest decisions they could've done), with the devs recently starting work on adding browser chrome, but it'll probably take years before it can be considered to be a useful alternative.
For now your best bet is probably to use a Firefox fork (Icecat will probably not shit the bed, but there's many other forks although a good chunk of them also modify the source code in ways that might not be desirable to casual browser users since they started usually with the goal to privacy harden Firefox and privacy focused forks have a bad habit of disabling features you probably do want enabled) or a user.js for Firefox to turn off undesirable features, at least until the situation becomes truly unusable; not sure what the best choice is after that because none of the Firefox forks have the manpower to step up and become a new main browser.
Ad blocking works quite well in Brave and in Firefox with (ubo). Any other browser is just an almost carbon copy of one of those two methods. Are you seeing something that I’m not? I really don’t see 99% of the ads that would without ad blocking in browser. Also Mozilla is fine and most of us nerds freak out when they try something new like this.
>I am really happy and uplifted that people expose Mozilla's wrongdoing
I remember up until around 10 to 15 years ago when Mozilla enjoyed seemingly limitless good will from basically anyone who had anything to do with computers.
Now they're arguably more reviled than even Big Tech, and rightfully so especially since they're deceiving about it.
They have some good stuff like offline page translation.
But most importantly they have a good review process for popular browser extensions. Google controls Chrome store, and they have conflict of interest when it comes to hosting stuff like Ublock.
So for daily browsing locked down Firefox. For banking and office stuff vanilla Chrome.
> they have a good review process for popular browser extensions... [Google] have conflict of interest when it comes to hosting stuff like Ublock.
It's serendipitous you mentioned that extension, because Mozilla recently came under fire after its treatment of that developer[1], and people started talking about how tedious it is to publish extensions. Mozilla is now also an ad company, so it has the same conflict of interest as Google.
I see that conflict as a sign this process actually works. That extension had a few thousands of downloads, and should not get automatic pass, just because it is from famous developer.
Ublick Origin is different from "Ublock Origin Lite"
All Chromium and Firefox-based browsers are tainted by association. The most promising options are Ladybrid, forked from the SerenityOS browser, but it's a long wait to 2026, and Servo-based browsers like Verso:
It all comes down to web engines. There are many browsers built on top of Chromium and a few that use Gecko or WebKit. Some of these try to make as few changes to the underlying engine as possible to ease the engine upgrades in their codebases, and due to the nature of the web they have to keep updating their engines.
So, a big question then is if Google, Apple, or Mozilla decide to change their engine in such a way that it would improve user tracking on the web how many of these custom browser companies and individuals (Vivaldi, Brave, Arc, Tor, folks, etc.) would be willing to undo those changes, or add code to mitigate the tracking? And then how many of them will keep migrating their patches from one version of the engine to the next? And how many of them will continue doing so when the engine maintainers will actively try to make this work harder? And how many investors will keep giving money to these browser companies?
The web is very vulnerable, and Mozilla with its board slowly leeching off all the resources out of it has long been loosing its ground for a long time. I'm afraid that we are at a point when the only way to preserve user privacy is via regulatory means. EU is clumsy, but at least they make the user tracking more annoying for advertisers, and some actors like Apple would be more hesitant to blatantly add ad supporting code to WebKit just to avoid further confrontations with the EU.
On top of uBlock origin, I can also recommend plugins to remove tracking elements from the URL, remove cookies, and running an own unbound + adblock (or similar).
Sadly then this becomes hard to maintain for non-IT people (i.e. the majority).
I had the same question at first. Upon downloading and inspecting the PNG file, you will notice that it actually has an alpha channel. This allows us to give it any color we want easily by giving a background color property in CSS. That could still be achieved however, if it wasn't transparent, by playing with the Hue value.
I think that quote is correct. We have billions of physically separated computers that are all connected. And for the most part, if they are not connected, they are rather useless. So we do indeed have just a few "computers" in the world, whose components are distributed across every individual who uses these few computers.
I don't believe in anything metaphysical, I believe all these things can be explained by what is "real".
If I draw a circle and put two dots in it and a curve below the two dots, your brain will immediately recognize these shapes as a human face (smiley face). That means somewhere in your brain there is a mechanism to recognize faces. I believe in everybody's brain there exists such knowledge and reflexes that may become more prominent under the effect of some drugs - there is nothing unusual about that.
I do believe this is very mysterious and interesting, and that it must be researched so we can learn more about it. But I find it wrong and dangerous to try to theorize that there is "something out there bigger than our brain". Like no, it is all in our brain - but that does not make this issue any less interesting. Brain is capable of great many things and great number of things can be revealed to an individual when their brain is functioning differently under some drugs. I just don't think this hints towards some metaphysical world of wonders that is otherwise hidden from our normal state of mind.
I agree that maybe this doesn’t prove the existence of a higher metaphysical plane, but don’t you find it a bit hubristic to assume that the contemporary human perception and way of categorizing things just happens to be the way everything actually is?
Here are two fun facts: Wifi antennas are just lightbulbs that shine really red light that we can't see. Trees are loud, like really loud, but we can't hear it at all since it's all ultrasound.
It's pretty clear that we as ugly giant bags of mostly water don't perceive much of what's going on and tack a lot of made up shit on top to make it more functional. Like colours which aren't really a thing, objectively speaking (ask a colour blind person or check what the JWST sees in outer space).
And yet we know that we don't see these things, because we can detect them indirectly. And we've been finding methods of better indirect detection of literally anything for millennia and mapping it all into the areas we can detect. If there was a configuration of carbon in our heads that mixed with drugs detects something, we'd have built a artificial sensor out of it by now (alas it is but random noise that does not correlate with anything, not even itself). So while there's probably still particles and fields that we can't detect yet and some we even know we don't know about (ahem dark matter/energy ahem), it wouldn't be too much hubris to say we've got most of it covered by now.
Just because we've found a lot of previously undetectable things in no way indicates that we've found "most" of it by now. All it indicates is that we've found more things than we knew before; for all we know, we may have merely gone from knowing 0.01% to 0.02%.
Well to some degree we actually can know how much we know and don't know, with statistics [0] and our observations so far. So much of modern science was easy pickings in the 19th and 20th centuries, while these days we keep investing ludicrous amounts of effort into ultra specific experiments to figure out some small new thing that often just confirms what we already thought, learning relatively little in comparison to the ye olde polymaths making three new branches of science by themselves. The fact that we're so far into diminishing returns is an indicator by itself. Most new tech these days isn't even new, it's just figuring out how to make the already known practical enough to be cost effective.
Now sure, a person during the roman times or the middle ages could be caught saying the same thing and couldn't be more wrong. And sure it's entirely possible that we'll figure something out that will revolutionize our knowledge of the universe entirely... but every time general relativity predicts yet another observation to an annoying level of perfection that chance becomes smaller and smaller.
The history of human knowledge is pretty much a succession of people saying "we know everything, this topic is done" being proved wrong by a new development.
I'll again say that I think it's extremely hubristic to think that human civilization has somehow figured out "most" scientific knowledge in the last couple of centuries. This human-centered attitude is not unique, though, which is kind of my point: it's not a new thing at all to think that the current level of knowledge has nowhere to go. It's just the typical human hubris that has been with us forever.
With the “God of the gaps” things…it’s always hand waved away. Things seem mystical until science comes along a codifies it so to speak. And yet the gap remains, it’s just further out. It’s a gap we didn’t even know was there. It just gives me pause when I try to think about the totality of things. How can I say for sure how it came to be when I’m not even close to sure what it is.
Well sure, but at least in comparison with the entire history of life on this planet, we've known close to nothing until the last ~400 years and have since figured out most that practically matters to us on a daily basis. We don't know how to cure cancer, but we know exactly what it is.
We're certainly still wrong about exotic types of matter, gravity, fundamental particles, the ways completely arbitrary things function, like genes in a cell, etc... but we know that cells exist, what they're composed of, and we're definitely not wrong about that, and that is frankly infinitely more knowledge than we've ever had before. What's left to find are mostly increasingly more nitpicky details that are nonetheless very important, but they don't change our understanding anywhere nearly as drastically.
To wrap back around to my original point, in comparison to everything else the amount of knowledge we've gained on paranormal things since tribal shaman times is about zero. It's still all hearsay and speculation and it's not for the lack of trying.
> Trees are loud, like really loud, but we can't hear it at all since it's all ultrasound.
Just to put loud in perspective: seems like cavitation produces ultrasound in the ~30db range at the highest[1], which is roughly the level of a whisper. I haven't knowingly captured trees in my ultrasound field recording, but it seems fun to try. That should be loud enough to pick up something with an ultrasonic recorder close by, I'd think, which is pretty cool -- I assumed you'd need to do something like David Dunn and embed microphones into the trees.
Is there any evidence for this ultrasound being a communication medium of any kind (I'm thinking less IPv6 or US English, and more insect or bird calls)? Any hint that they listen to sounds as well as make them, or that there's any information content in it? Or it's more like heartbeats and engine/fan noise, just a byproduct of processes doing what they do?
Suppose a model of reality M (which makes predictions) and doesn't admit a higher metaphysical plane as part of the model. Now assume Mp does admit a higher metaphysical plane and makes the same predictions as M for all observable phenomena (or for all reality in the sense of 'this reality').
In such a case, the existence of a higher metaphysical plane is purely aesthetic. In terms of predictions, both models are equally correct, being identical. The correctness of the internal representation is beyond epistemological limits, and arguably a meaningless or ill-formed proposition. For a significant difference, the models must make different predictions. But the conventional understanding (say the standard model) is carefully constructed and deviations by laypeople are invariably simplifications or are due to impaired reality testing.
This situation is the same as religion, because it is one. Either the religion doesn't make predictions about reality, in which case it's difference is purely aesthetic (as a model of reality), or it does and in practice is either trivially falsifiable or copying what is already known (note that the old well known religions have long since had their predictions tested).
Psychedelic experiences could, in theory, produce interesting hypotheses about reality; just like Scientology and the "Twin flame" people could. But in practice it almost always seems to produce crackpot stuff like "you can make a perceptual motion machine with time crystals and fractals; also Einstein, Aristotle, and Tupac already knew this but no one was paying attention; luckily drug-induced divine revelation has bequeathed this information via direct transmission; if only everyone else experienced ego death, then maybe they could be as great as I".
This is the hubris I perceive in the idea that scientists, philosophers, etc. that have dedicated their life to the study of particular tiny pieces of reality and honed a disciplined sense of intellectual rigor are going to be outdone by random people tripping. It is uniquely offensive and arrogant.
That said, in so far as 'reality' is 'my model of reality', individuals may gain psychological insight by partaking in 'spiritual' activity, including psychedelics, and it follows that they may gain a 'special understanding of (their) reality' in that way. The problems are the magical thinking implicated in universalizing personal insight, the pitfall of assuming independence of realities beyond subjective experience, the belief subjective perception is unlimited by physical reality, and in some a tendency to insist that such insight cannot be gained in other (more mundane) ways.
I think you're kind of "talking past me" here, in that you're replying to a different point than the one I'm making. I'm not saying that psychedelics or crackpot theories are offering some kind of insight that scientists are missing. Rather, that describing reality with contemporary human concepts is just going to be inherently limited and restricted, because of its foundation in human perception. Saying that nothing bigger than our brain exists just seems very limited and human-centric to me.
I think it's pretty likely that there are sources of information we don't normally perceive. I mean at some point the theory of evolution says we didn't sense light, and then some mutation let us see what was, at the time, a metaphysical world of wonders that was otherwise hidden from our normal state of mind!
We don't really know how brains work, or how reality works, so I think it's premature to be confident about either subject.
I've heard a hypothesis that suggests the evolution of eyes set off the Cambrian Explosion. Rather than a "a metaphysical world of wonders", it was a physical world of things to eat and be eaten by.
We have countless mechanical sensors and detectors that can sense just about everything there is in this universe, even neutrinos. Even if we magically manage to detect half of that it wouldn't show us anything we don't already know. Although it would be trippy to see the full EM spectrum.
"just about everything" includes detecting perturbations in the intensity and frequency of light that Occam's Razor suggests is due to unaccounted mass and energy. Moreover, that the unaccounted-for amount would exceed the light and mass we can detect (75:25, roughly? Maybe less, depending on the model). Our best explanations all sound dubious -- dark matter & dark energy? Hardly an explanation. Extra torsion of the space in each galaxy due to the effect on space from black holes? That's a pretty big rounding error. WIMPs that we've left out of the Standard Model? Recent experiments have left little room for that possibility.
There may indeed be things which we can't detect, even with our best instruments, that we don't have a suitable explanation for.
I would go as far as to say it's a certainty there are things we can't detect yet... but probably not that many of them. Dark matter is funny because it's actually something that we can detect [0], at least indirectly but can't explain yet. But just like there are the EM and Higgs fields there could be countless other fields that don't affect our day to day reality in any way, but in that sense they might as well not exist.
> But just like there are the EM and Higgs fields there could be countless other fields that don't affect our day to day reality in any way, but in that sense they might as well not exist.
Then you also have to accept that you're not talking about objective reality in any way but isolated to human experience and limited by our cognitive and experimental abilities.
"a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that is based on the scientific method and uses facts, hypotheses, and laws"
Because it's not theorizing, it's wishful thinking. And for some reason it almost always leads to people telling other people how to live their lives based on the "thing that's bigger than our brain" (e.g. god, because that's what you're all trying to imply). That's why it's dangerous.
Because you express no uncertainty, your belief equals the statement: There exists 0% probability that agency in the physical universe is embedded. This is stupid, because embedded agency does exist, EG we have programs that simulate consciousness & life that are embedded. You have evidence that we could with some non-zero probability embed a worm or baby ape into a simulation that will approximately work like it would in real life with only the physics being less accurate (IE cannot model quantum states perfectly). You should now combine this with the fact that by default embedded agents have no "real" models of the external world, IE a smart monkey in a small simulationmight deduce external world has computational complexity limits BUT they probably cannot say "Eiffel Tower exists in Paris" or "The Universe expands at speed of light."
Thus your position should be approximately: There exists non-zero probability that agency in the physical universe is embedded but since its small and "external" to our agency, one has no reason (ability?) to believe in other than by stating this as their best model.
---
Englightement is to know that death means merely the state after which what happens cannot be predicted because you are dead.
But what is relationship between intelligence & immortality?
Oh! I get to talk about my favorite subject: the egregore.
When a company forms it is useful, if not entirely accurate, to describe it as an intelligent agent. This entity does not physically exist, the soul of Disney is not in it's avatar micky mouse, or it's CEO, it's in the (collection of) minds of everyone that sees Disney as an entity. Santa Clause does not exist outside your imagination, yet parents act as the egregore's hands giving out presents. To a real extent, Santa Clause is the cause of acts of good will, and even though Santa doesn't physically exist, physical actions are taken in Santa's name. Same with any accolades of any religion. Or employee's of a company.
Its truth value is orthogonal to it's predictive value, and it is very predictive. See, there are two kinds of general groups within the egregore, the hands (creators, generators, those occupied with the 'mission' of the egregore) and the mouth (those occupied with feeding and sustaining an egregore, sales/marketing). The hands start off in charge and everything works, but eventually the mouth gets control and eats the hands, starving the egregore.
An egregore eats it's own hands and starves to death. This is exactly what happened with Boeing.
It could be modeled from an individual's mind, but some concepts take a village to execute, and some(times) things emerge when you put a bunch of smaller things together. A wave isn't the matter in which it materializes, it's something emergent from when you move some material in a certain way.
But yeah, Atheist here, this is about as esoteric as I get :)
Interesting. Sounds like this could turn into a long form essay or book.
> Its truth value is orthogonal to its predictive value
This seems to imply that the integrity of a company's information/communication functions (truth value) is unrelated to its ability to make accurate predictions about future events ... Why is this significant, or have I misunderstood?
I mean to say, modeling a company hyper accurately - down to personal psychology of the high level employees - has diminishing returns for predictive value, and also diminishing returns for generalizability. And a surprisingly useful toy model (the egregore and it's hand eating lifecycle), describe better(or at least, good enough) what will happen with any particular company given it's current state according to the terms of that model.
To clarify the possible misunderstanding: 'its' is referring to the toy model of the egregore (not any particular company/egregor), My point is useful things are useful regardless of them being strictly true.
It really isn’t “wrong and dangerous” - hippies talking about greater consciousnesses have been a thing for a looooong time, and surely you could accept in SOME manner the argument that mankind is a kind of organism as well. That’s basically what sociology is studying!
The really interesting philosophical question is what causes the aggregation of consciousness. It isn't related to distance or connection, rather it seems to be the result of physical "coupling" through shared history. It's almost like consciousness represents the shared state of a given part of the universe.
An even more true statement when made in the context of pre Scientific Revolution. We don’t know everything but we know a heck of a lot more than when this was written.
We are just a clump of matter floating through space with some crude detection devices equipped so we can tell when electromagnetic waves hit us.
If the brain is just forcing all this input into some kind of reality, with illusions like the flow of time to attempt to predict the constant change/entropy going on around it, then couldn't drugs expand that capacity?
In other words, if time is just perception of changing states in the universe, and there is no past/present/future, just states, then we aren't really experiencing a "present", but an illusion created by using patterns from past state changes. In that case if drugs expanded that pattern detection then you could start altering your "present" much more powerfully, e.g. vividly replaying past states, or perceiving state changes that you would normally filter out, like a conversation someone is having across the street.
Sorry also I can't really express this correctly and it also may be total nonsense!
I am working alone on MyApps [1], an app of apps where you can spawn any number of pre-defined "app windows" into a zoomable, pannable infinite 2D space. Currently it only features a clone of PureRef.
It runs Gundb in the backend, providing a privacy friendly, p2p syncing organization tools.
It seems that there is a persistent desire to call the country whatever you are used to. As a Turkish, I would add the points: You can call it whatever you want. Turkey is the historical name of the region. I believe the bird's name was also adopted from the fact that the bird came to Western world through Turkiye. The bird comes to us from India, so we call it "Hindi" in Turkish. I hope India one day does not change its name to something else because they don't want to be associated with what other people call them. Oh wait, they call themselves as Bharat(a) actually. In Turkish, the word "spice" is called "Baharat". Go figure.
Another important point for people who want to dead name Turkiye is this: When South Sudan was separate from Sudan, they were called South Sudan. Nobody disputed their name. If Turkiye split in two one day, one might call itself "Eastern Turkiye". In that case I just hope nobody tells them, 'no I will call you "Eastern Turkey" because that's what the other country was called which you were part of before.' We are not called "Ottoman Kingdom 2.0" for some reason. Now we apparently chose ourselves a new name to be referred in foreign languages. They did not consult me, tbh. But it fits what we call it in our original language (we call it "Türkiye"), so I am actually happy about it. So if you show respect to that decision then you show that as it is. If you don't respect it then, well you don't, and that's that. No kebap for you (/s).
About Roblox: My nephew coming of age invited me to play computer games. He told me to install Roblox but I haven't even heard about it and it did not appeal to me. I told him to install Sven-Co-op, because Half-Life is awesome and Sven Co-Op gives you multiplayer feature for free. We played for a while but he was dead bored and he quit. I was genuinely hurt but did not show it. New generation likes other things I guess. Then we played Roblox and honestly it had worse graphics than Half-Life, which is 25 years old game. Somehow it was boring to me but enjoyable to my Gen Z nephew. Well I hope he won't get too hardly shaken by the news, anyhow, somehow I feel relieved about this ban. These days he talks about "making his own games". I want to wait until a bit before I tell him the bad news about making games, but in general I am happy about the direction he is thinking.
> These days he talks about "making his own games". I want to wait until a bit before I tell him the bad news about making games
Part of the appeal of Roblox, to my limited understanding, is the ability to create content ("games") for it. This is the platform's two-edged sword, though, since their content moderation seems either insufficient or otherwise lacking for my tastes.
It's kind of the same problem with reddit: there is good content there, but there's also some of the worst things imaginable outside of *chan or *leaks. I pay a lot of attention when I notice any of my teenage kids are looking at any subreddit.
or, you just accept that different countries use different names for other countries.
Nobody calls Germany "Deutschland" outside of Germany (okay, outside of German-speaking countries)
Nobody calls Japan "Nihon" except people in Japan
Nobody calls Finland "Suomi" except people living there
...and the same goes for cities.
People probably still call it Turkey because they know how to pronounce it. Both the "ü" and the "iy" are very uncommon (and thus hard to pronounce) sounds for most of the world.
But that's the point: the name hasn't actually changed. It has always been called "Türkiye" by the people living there. What has changed is that they now want everyone else to call them by that name...
> Côte d’Ivoire
Nobody except french speaking countries call it that. It's called "Ivory Coast" in English, for example
Yes, they want that; why not do that then? Like with Czechia[1], Sri Lanka, the Netherlands and others?
Côte d’Ivoire is indeed also known as "Ivory Coast"; still, you can write a sentence in English with "Côte d’Ivoire" and it doesn't raise an eyebrow[2]. If that's not enough, there's Curaçao too.
A substantial part of the US population isn't going to know where the Ivory coast is, even less so if you call it Côte d’Ivoire, or why you're saying it in French.
Would they be better with a different country though? To be fair, a substantial part of the US population couldn’t point Iran or Ukraine[1] on the map.
We used Praat last semester in our socio-linguistics class to annotate voice recordings... For a class presentation, I went crazy and tried to build simple web-based annotator tool to impress my teacher. He ended up not liking it but the project taught me Django :D ... Here is a link (provides manual spectrum analysis for a particular experiment setup):
I wonder if the most recent data from internet that ended up in the training data makes chatgpt lean towards randomly picking that name. [1] https://www.momjunction.com/baby-names/elara/#popularity-ove...