Isn’t that taken the analogy too literally? You’re saying nature is promoting humans to generate the next token to be outputted? What about all the other organisms that don’t have language? How do you distinguish nature prompts from nature training datasets? What makes you think nature is tokenized? What makes you think language generation is fundamental to biology?
I would imagine the baseline assumption of your thinking is that things like sleep and emotions are a 'bug' in terms of cognition (or at the very least, 'prompts' that are optional).
Said differently, the assumption is that with the right engineer, you could reach human-parity cognition with a model that doesn't sleep or feel emotions (after all what's the point of an LLM if it gets tired and doesn't want to answer your questions sometimes? Or even worse knowingly deceives you because it is mad at you or prejudiced against you).
The problem with that assumption is that as far as we can tell, every being with even the slightest amount of cognition sleeps in some form and has something akin to emotional states. As far as we can prove, sleep and emotions are necessary preconditions to cognition.
A worldview where the 'good' parts of the brain (reasoning and logic) are replicated in LLM but the 'bad' parts (sleep, hunger, emotions, etc.) are not is likely an incomplete model.
Ah a very fun 'snippy' question that just proves my point further. Thank you.
No airplanes do not sleep. That's part of why their flying is fundamentally different than birds'.
You'll likely also notice that birds flap their wings while planes use jet engines and fixed wings.
My entire point is that it is foolish to imagine airplanes as mechanical birds, since they are in fact completely different and require their own mental models to understand.
This is analogous to LLMs. They do something completely different than what our brains do and require their own mental models in order to understand them completely.
Here, it's actually fun to respond to your comment in another way, so let's try this out:
Yes, sleep is in fact a prerequisite to planes flying. We have very strict laws about it actually. Most planes are only able to fly because a human (who does sleep) is piloting it.
The drones and other vehicles that can fly without pilots were still programmed by a person (who also needed sleep) FWIW.
I own one of each, and develop for the Vision Pro through my job, it's the very same story it's always been. Apple hasn't 'invented' much here, but the magic is in how it's assembled, even in its current state, using apps in a 3d space feels better than anything the quest has ever done. Even simple things like 'touching' a panel just feels more natural on the vision pro than the same experience on the quest, mostly because the quest does things like forcing the ghost hand to stop at the surface of the window, instead of continuing to track your hand through it and just using the intersection as the touch point. It's a small difference in the interaction that makes a world of difference in usability, which Apple is very good at.
"Fair" has many meanings. If there are 2 brothers, one super intelligent and the other retarded, should the smart one keep all his money for himself and the dumb one die from starvation since he is not capable of sustaining himself? The smart one got his gift for free and although maybe he didn't waste it while he could have, the retarded one didn't have equal starting ground.
The difference I see between US/EU worldview is that in US the biggest emphasis is in what "YOU" did, disregarding luck, chance, environment factors etc. "Bill Gates created the wealth himself". People like feeling like there is a chance for them to become super powerful and important and that there is no system holding you back, even though they never actually do it but the hope/idea is very important for you. I can see this in Eastern Europe where large percentage of people dream of winning the lottery; I guess that is something from which people here draw hope of power and influence, while the same people are ok with strong social measures, high taxes, free healthcare etc. while I feel in US all these social benefits are perceived to prevent people from achieving astronomical results and hence shouldn't be.
I'd say it's like this for any older game which still has a multiplayer community regardless of genre. There just isn't a big influx of new players and the bad ones give up.
That may be the case but other genres, such as shooters (first and third person), have found ways to get around it. Fortnite, for example, has nowhere near this issue whereas Quake 3 is plagued by it. The 100-player battle royale structure of Fortnite is one mechanism I think helps to mitigate the problem of overwhelming skill gap.
This kind of thing hasn't really been tested in RTS games, which usually focus on 1v1s.
Fortnite's solution has been bots, which is not very popular because plenty of people think they're above bots. Or think that bots cheat (which is true in Starcraft). Or in fighting games, they don't play like humans so you end up learning bad habits.
The big issue with bots is that they are almost never good enough to beat a moderately skilled and muscle-memoried human player. People who try to use them to learn don't end up being any better than a n00b, as it were.
They didn't cheat on sc2 did they? They did in sc1. But regardless, with the breakthroughs in AI recently, I don't think they'd need to cheat on a hypothetical sc3.
I know in SC2 the harder AI would get free resources.
I think "playing like a human" can still be an issue depending on the game. Until people want to play against AIs, there's not a lot of work put into making AIs human-like rather than just AI players.
Same here. I joined current company 3 years ago when Influx v2 was coming out. I was supposed to build some analytics on top of it. It was very painful. Flux compiler was often giving internal errors, docs were unclear and it was hard to write any a bit more complicated code. The dash is subpar to graphana but graphana had just raw support. There was no query builder for flux so I tried building dashboards in influxv2 but the whole experience was excrutiating. I still have an issue open where they have an internal function incorrectly written in their own flux code and I provided the fix and what was the issue but it was never addressed. Often times I had a feeling that I found bugs in situations that were so basic that it felt like I was the only person on the planet writing Flux code
I'm running InfluxDB 1 and 2 in parallel for a personal project, waiting for v2 to get mature and stable enough to replace v1. It's never happening I guess. v1 still works great for me.
I updated the comment, It's really weird. They bought a part but also effectively gave Rimac the Bugatti company. One can argue that they basically leveraged Bugatti to acquire some control of Rimac and board seats without spending actual money.
Not that complicated. Porsche was once described as "the hedge fund that happens to also build cars".
Porsche did this stake here and there thing precisely to gain > 50% of Rimac voting rights.
It's simple really: Porsche controls Rimac.
Then there's the whole "VW took control of Porsche after the short squeeze made by Porsche to try to acquire VW failed" (it failed due to the sudden crash during the 2008 banking crisis IIRC). And now Porsche is apparently spinning out of VW and shall be independent again.
Absolutely. We don't have kids tho. A few times a year a game comes up when I have to explain to my wife that I'm going to need some more time for myself for a week, I go less to the gym during that time, maybe I don't go out for the weekend and house chores get left behind a bit. Then I binge something for 30 hours for a week and then dial back
If there was more value in requiring login than there is in having this public and easily accessible, it would be behind a login form. The current internet has 99% of the time nothing to do with values someone imagined in the 80s
Value to whom? Twitter is more valuable to its users, to journalists who embed tweets in stories, and to web users at large who follow links and search results if it does not require a login to view posts.
Of course, none of those people own Twitter, and it may well be more valuable to its owners if it does require a login.
What you describe is the Facebook business model. Which seems to be a valid model, but twitter was not built around it and such a pivot would break all business moats around the company.
There was no web in the 80s so not sure what values you refer to, or how they are relevant to today's businesses.
