But winning is only fun because you do not always win and almost proportionally so...
If you get better you get to play better games against better opponents.
The win or loss is ancillary to the experience for me.
>The win or loss is ancillary to the experience for me.
Maybe because I primarily play sports and not chess but this attitude is completely foreign and mystifying to me.
Don't you feel bad when you lose? Why would you purposely engage in an ELO system that results in you feeling bad after 50% of games, and never gives you a sense of progress?
Isn't that profoundly discouraging?
Do you think Tiger Woods or Leo Messi wish they won fewer matches? Like I just can't get myself into a headspace where you're out for competition but are satisfied with a 50% win rate.
The ELO system does give you a sense of process. Continuing to beat up weak players does not give you progress. It makes you the one eyed king of the blind.
Do you think professional athletes like Woods and Messi are stupid because they could be playing in Farm League and winning every time against scrubs?
By definition it does not, unless your definition of progress is "number go up".
>Do you think professional athletes are stupid because they could be playing in Little League and winning every time against kids?
So let me get this straight: are you seriously suggesting that you don't understand the difference between e.g. the format of the NHL or the FIFA world cup, and playing against literal children to pad one's win rate?
Because I think you're probably not arguing in good faith with that last comment. Time for me to duck out of this conversation.
It feels bad to loose but you also need the wins to feel good. Beating a low ELO player is about as fun as beating small kids at basketball or something. For me it’s not the win/loss that drives me but making fewer mistakes. If I loose a game where my opponent punished a minor mistake, fair enough, that took skill and I’ll learn from it and I don’t feel bad. But if I loose because I made a blunder (obvious tactical error) that sucks and I hate that.
I feel designated wilderness areas (at least in my state, CO) could benefit from MORE regulation because they are trammeled to hell by cattle. Additional protections only improve these areas.
Also, I did not realize the Wilderness designation had anything to do with indigenous Americans. Is that a thing?
A forest turns solar energy into wood, locking up that energy in an inedible form. Grass, on the other hand, can be eaten by grazing animals and turned into meat. If you're living off the land but not farming, then you'd prefer it to be covered in grass instead of trees.
Grazing animals can prevent grassland from reforesting by eating the tree shoots, but they can't knock down mature trees. There is some evidence paleoindians would burn down forests to expand grasslands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_bison_belt
Thus, in some parts of the US, you can stand on a hill, look out at miles of apparently untouched land without a single permanent structure, but is as artificial and manmande as a golf course, crafted from thousands of years of invisible labor.
> A forest turns solar energy into wood, locking up that energy in an inedible form. Grass, on the other hand, can be eaten by grazing animals and turned into meat. If you're living off the land but not farming, then you'd prefer it to be covered in grass instead of trees.
Hem, not. This is not how it works. A very old, well cared apple tree can produce 800 Kg of apples a year. You can't breed a cow just using the grass growing in the same surface. It needs more space. A lot of animals eat leaves, twigs, fruits, and flowers of trees. The thicker the "layer alive" that can sustain animals the better. Trees are like the fat of the land. Rocky areas are like the skeleton of the land. Grasslands left unregulated enter very fast into a tragedy of the commons spiral by being invaded by cattle, sheeps and goats turning into rocky areas.
Ceteris paribus, normal trees will always outcompete fruit trees because they don't have to waste any energy on fruit, and use that instead on trunk height, putting fruit trees in their shade and, eventually, starving them to death.
You can, of course, maintain an orchard of fruit trees, manually removing competitor species, but then we're talking about stationary farming, a technology that Plains Indians did not have ten thousand years ago.
Not. Not always. This is a too simplistic point of view.
Is like asking "how many penguins can be seen in this photo of the sahara?"
If the conclusion is that penguins can't compete with camels, is a deceptive one.
This forest is a conifer forest. Put the same conifer in a place suitable for growing walnuts, figs, or hazelnuts and we will see who kills who.
There is no dream-reality separation in an LLM, or really any conception of dreams or reality, so I don't think the term makes sense. Hallucination works fine to describe the phenomenon. LLMs work by coalescing textual information. LLM hallucinations occur due to faulty or inappropriate coalescence of information, which is similar to what occurs with actual hallucinations.
I appreciated a post on here recently that likened AI hallucination to 'bullshitting'. It's coherent, even plausible output without any regard for the truth.
More true to say that all output is bullshitting, not just the ones we call hallucinations. Some of it is true, some isn't. The model doesn't know or care.
While I have absolutely no issues with the word "shit" in popular terms, I'd normally like to reserve it for situations where there's actually intended malice like in "enshittification".
Rather than just an imperfect technology as we have here.
Many people object to the term enshittification for foul-mouthing reasons but I think it covers it very well because the principle it covers is itself so very nasty. But that's not at all the case here.
Europe is more stringent about sunscreens too. They publish these standards. Each country has to set its own standards, and there are plenty to follow if they want a starting point...
I think you can make art out of just about anything. Constraints and limitations add to art, not detract. I'm certain plenty of people add artistic flourishes into their work. There's no shortage of code used to create art. The code itself can be artful as well.
Similarly writing can be used for non-artistic and more practical purposes.
I just see so many counter examples I wonder if I'm missing the point.
I'd like to expand your artistic vs practical point by denying that really is a dichotomy, at least not in practice.
I've done lots of creative writing, and most of what matters in that domain is solving really pragmatic problems: is this metaphor clear? In what order should the reader receive this information? How can I get exposition across in a way that isn't distracting? Do these words go together well? Viewed askance, those (and infinitely more) are all constraints (many self-imposed, or at least self-perceived), that allow "art" to happen, and define the terms on which it succeeds.
For my job-job I do lots of pragmatic writing, too - think documentation and technical analysis - and I do my damndest to find "creative" ways to present material. I'll write things like "this next bit is really technical, if you're not in roles X, Y, and Z you might as well skip to the next page. For those of you who have to read this, imagine you're a squirrel", and then name all the variables after a type of nut. It's makes it more fun for me to write, sure, but the actual, pragmatic reason is that more people read and understand it when I put in effort to make material less dry.
(I realize some people on HN would be terribly offended by that last example, and think I'm insulting their intelligence by being "cute", and "why can't he use Σ, like Euler intended?" Well, you're not my audience - or, at least, not the most important among my day-job audience. In other words, if that's you, imagine you're a nut.)
To apply it to the dart game analogy I would argue it's just not as compelling to the rich kids. They can shoot shots if they want, but winning the stuffed animal isn't that exciting because they can have as many of those as they want without winning a dart game. The prize is much more exciting to someone who has to hit the shot to get the prize.
The win or loss is ancillary to the experience for me.
reply