I don’t want to come and help “balance out” someone who thinks that using they/them pronouns is worse than committing genocide.
Does anyone really think this, or are you just using hyperbole?
Not hyperbole. Hanania, Manifest promoted speaker, wrote “Why Do I Hate Pronouns More Than Genocide?” in May 2022.
I just can’t, it’s like that one scene from Austin Powers.
Isn’t it like not real money? Or have they changed that
Analyzing our data we conclude with 95% confidence that within a decade the Dyson Sphere Any% TAS time will be reduced below 55 seconds (± 1E10 years).
and here i just assumed the name was original to ffxiv
“[massive deficiency] isn’t a flaw of the program because it’s designed to have that deficiency”
it is a problem that it plagiarizes, how does saying “it’s designed to plagiarize” help???
The normal way to reproduce information which can only be found in a specific source would be to cite that source when quoting or paraphrasing it.
I thought Penrose was a smart physicist, the hell is he doing peddling this.
nvm i misread
deleted by creator
Link to Mollie Gleiberman’s dissertation cited in the article
yea i did try to read the lecture notes and got reminded very fast why i don’t try to read physics writing lol
I think there is in fact a notion of continuous entropy where that is actually true, and it does appear to be used in statistical mechanics (but I am not a physicist). But there are clearly a lot of technical details which have been scrubbed away by the LW treatment.
the task the AI solves is writing test cases for finding the Least Common Multiple modulo a number.
Looking at the image of the prompt, it looks more like a CRT computation to me.
It’s famously much easier to verify modulo arithmetic than it is to actually compute it.
It’s not particularly difficult to compute CRT, though it is definitely trivial to verify the result afterwards. I’m not sure I’d agree that that’s a general fact about modular arithmetic computations though.
Simply asking questions would be SAQing off, which is totally different.
The article is very poorly written, but here’s an explanation of what they’re saying. An “inductive Turing machine” is a Turing machine which is allowed to run forever, but for each cell of the output tape there eventually comes a time after which it never modifies that cell again. We consider the machine’s output to be the sequence of eventual limiting values of the cells. Such a machine is strictly more powerful than Turing machines in that it can compute more functions than just recursive ones. In fact it’s an easy exercise to show that a function is computable by such a machine iff it is “limit computable”, meaning it is the pointwise limit of a sequence of recursive functions. Limit computable functions have been well studied in mainstream computer science, whereas “inductive Turing machines” seem to mostly be used by people who want to have weird pointless arguments about the Church-Turing thesis.
why tf can’t she say the word “racist”? like is it supposed to be a dogwhistle insinuating similarity between “racist” and “leftist”??