I'm not sure hedonism in that sense isn't a valid desire provided it can be safely sustained. Imagine there was a substance that made the user happy, without any of the negative side effects or tolerance. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing to take. The issue with the drugs today isn't so much their pleasurable aspects, but the physical dependency, risk of overdose, eventual tolerance etc.
I guess I'm just a dishwasher neophyte. My old one was crude, loud, dried hot, and got the job done (to hot, dry dishes) in one hour. Rinse aid wasn't even a word in our household (we don't have hard water here - no water spots). But don't put in a rice cooker pot with ride residue in it - it'll be baked on so hard that you need a 1h soak to get it off.
The new one (Bosch 500 series) takes three hours on its default "auto" cycle. No prerunning the tap to get hot water for the first fill, no worries about rice cooker pots. It runs for so long (quietly!) that everything gets soaked properly and comes off, sparking clean, no problem. Both the consumables that came with the machine as samples - the tablets and the rinse aid - are stocked in large packages at Costco at a per-wash cost that's negligible. I do put in rinse aid because drying is a weakness in this machine compared to the old one. That, and you can't run two loads in the same evening after a party. Prewash? Who cares, the dishes come out clean.
And that's kind of the whole point isn't it? Not to have to geek out with your dishwasher. Just fill it, get it started and expect to have clean dishes in the morning.
They are actually similar by circle of thirds. They go as 1-3-5-7-2-4 over the rainbow.
This makes main triads be smooth gradients instead of random three-color flags.
1 and 5 pitches are neutral because:
- they are neutral (a hollow tonic power chord)
- they don't convey any information about the scale. they only give a reference point to measure everything else against
It does work generically. Like Apple, we initially targeted inference, but it under the hood just an anonymous, attested HTTP server wrapper. The ComputeNode can run an arbitrary workload.
Require a docker/script that provides for the necessary conditions for the exploit, along with a POC. If something is impossible to provide a POC for, as it's more of a speculative attack, require vetting like arxiv.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by deterministic code but I do think there is an obvious distinction between typical code people write and what human minds do. The guy upthread is definitely wrong in thinking that, e.g. any search or minimax algorithm is thinking. But its important to understand what this distinction is so we can spot when it might no longer apply.
To make a long story short, the distinction is that typical programs don't operate on the semantic features of program state, just on the syntactical features. We assign a correspondence with the syntactical program features and their transformations to the real-world semantic features and logical transformations on them. The execution of the program then tells us the outcomes of the logical transformations applied to the relevant semantic features. We get meaning out of programs because of this analogical correspondence.
LLMs are a different computing paradigm because they now operate on semantic features of program state. Embedding vectors assign semantic features to syntactical structures of the vector space. Operations on these syntactical structures allow the program to engage with semantic features of program state directly. LLMs engage with the meaning of program state and alter its execution accordingly. It's still deterministic, but its a fundamentally more rich programming paradigm, one that bridges the gap between program state as syntactical structures and the meaning they represent. This is why I am optimistic that current or future LLMs should be considered properly thinking machines.
So what's the skinny with Matter devices? I was potentially looking into one so that I could plug my Moccamaster into a smart timer (wonderful coffee maker, but the lack of programmable functionality has my wife constantly wanting to pull out our old Ninja), and I liked what I read about Matter. But it would be my first Matter device and I started to get discouraged when the documentation said I would need to purchase a Matter "hub" or something to act as the controller, so I held off.
I took this to mean it's not translating things consistently. Like, a button in Firefox might say "Show all downloads" or "Open previous windows and tabs". These were localized a certain way, but an AI has no ability to check that. It will just translate them anew, which might be the same or it might translate it to something synonymous, but which then confuses users searching for the "Display all downloads" button or whatever.
On a long enough timescale even improbably things will happen. The pamphlets would not mention that possibility because that would imply that the operator thought that a crash was possible, which would have caused their whole operation to be reviewed. By pointing out all but that, and by focusing on things that they could point at without having proof that living in the path of an active runway is risky (it is, take-off and landing are the most risky phases of flight) they were trying to get their way and check off a possible future headline without being seen as alarmist or engaging in risky behavior.
I'm trying to imagine this same thing happening with a subdivision in the same location where this plane crashed and the headlines that would have generated. As bad as this is, that alternative disaster would have been on an entirely different level.
I also hope that as a result of this crash there will be a global review of the placing of airports, especially the ones that are pretty much in cities with the flight path directly over houses during final approach and just after take-off.
There are many arguments but the most straightforward one is that a country may decide that preserving particular industries is in their security interest. That can be extended to culture as well.
Japan closed itself off from the world for centuries during the Edo period. One could say that they suffered economically due to that, but on the other hand, they ended up creating one of the more unique cultures in the world, developing in ways very different from others. It's an interesting kind of diversity.
It really is a huge service not just to the developed world that needs to decarbonize but also a huge service to the developing world. Solar can be put up quickly and cheaply and is good for about 2 decades and can be paired with cheap LiFo batteries to give round the clock electricity. Both of these are relatively portable. It can really bootstrap the economies of local communities where infrastructure hasn't been built out. Then combined that with portable Internet connection via something like Starlink or one of the competitor networks, we can really enable the available human capital in developing nations to realize their potential.
My experience has been that people who trust some form of alternative news over the NYT are not preferring "some random TikToker".
And a lot of the time, that trust is specific to a topic, one which matters to them personally. If they cannot directly verify claims, they can at least observe ways in which their source resonates with personal experience.
I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it.
If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model.
It's quite the same as if I read an article and then tell someone about it. If I'm allowed to learn from your article then why isn't openai?
Also the terms are just for liability. Nobody gives a shit what you use ChatGPT for, the only thing those terms do is prevent you from turning around and suing OpenAI after it blows up in your face.
> Existence problems are not optimisation problems
Several of the problems were existence problems, such as finding geometric constructions.
> It needs an optimisation function that can be incrementally improved in order to work towards an optimal result, not a binary yes/no.
This is not correct. The evaluation function is arbitrary. To quote the AlphaEvolve paper:
> or example, when wishing to find largest possible graphs satisfying a given property, ℎ invokes the evolved code to generate a graph, checks whether the property holds, and then simply returns the size of the graph as the score. In more complicated cases, the function ℎ might involve performing an evolved search algorithm, or training and evaluating a machine learning model
The evaluation function is a black box that outputs metrics. The feedback that you've constructed a graph of size K with some property does not tell you what you need to do to construct a graph of size K + M with the same property.
> a research mathematician is not trapped in a loop, mutating candidates for an evolutionary optimiser loop like the LLM is in AlphaEvolve.
Yes they are in a loop called the scientific method or the research loop. They try things out and check them. This is a basic condition of anything that does research.
> They have the agency to decide what questions to explore
This is unrelated to the question of whether LLMs can solve novel problems
> most of which (as the article says) can be approached using traditional optimisation techniques with similar results.
This is a mischaracterization. The article says that an expert human working with an optimizer might achieve similar results. In practice that's how research is done by humans as I mentioned above: it is human plus computer program. The novelty here is that the LLM replaces the human expert.
Meanwhile, Common Crawl’s executive director, Rich Skrenta, has publicly made the case that AI models should be able to access anything on the internet. “The robots are people too,” he told me, and should therefore be allowed to “read the books” for free.
The shamelessness of the propaganda reaches new heights. The industry shills no longer even attempt to make arguments, they just rely on people repeating their slogans.
If you built homes with a lot of thermal mass, you could cool the internal thermal mass when energy is $0 and have that mass absorb heat the rest of the day. This is sort of the principle a lot of traditional architecture uses where evaporation, wind over a courtyard, or nighttime lows cool thick walls.
It's not a drop-in replacement; rather it is an implementation of the same ideas (+ some extra ones) but open source so it can be used for things other than Apple devices.
> If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it.
So by implication you're actually completely fine with other countries pursuing their own objectives for businesses that choose to trade in their country.
Because you cannot, possibly, in 2025, be making an argument that the USA's interpretation of the way of things is unimpeachable. That would be absurd and laughable.
I look forward to you explaining to Germans and Israelis why Nazi symbols and Nazi websites should be legal because banning them hurts a US tech company's interests.
I'm pretty sure you will receive a variety of opinions, some of them in large fonts with an invitation to print them and roll them up for storage.
For the power user, I don't see much that Matter/Thread offers over Zigbee. The "unified command protocol" is not much of a problem with attentive device selection (and for chinese products there is Tuya) and as for Thread, it's not dramatically better. There were debates around this 4+ years ago, and will be 4+ years from now, what happened is coexistence, and _very_ slow Matter rollout.
The condescension is coming from "We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with." which is completely dismissing the points they made in the post. Basics "surely there is more to it than just what is in the post". A better response would have responded with actions/talking points to the items listed in the post. Then asking for a call for further clarification of the respondents point.
