To be responsible for that damage as a successor, one would have to acknowledge that damage was done in the first place, which isn't something that Russia is willing to do.
And it's not even a government thing. One of the very common historical myths in Russia is that it was a net positive force in basically all the territories it ever occupied as an empire. The rhetoric around it is pretty much identical by the one used by European colonial empires pre-decolonization, except that Russia never underwent the latter (for good reasons: if it were to decolonize in proper sense, it would cease to exist as a state).
It also blew my mind that a human being, John Stapp, survived >40g acceleration and 26g deceleration, in a rocket sled. I believe it was the deceleration that hurt him the most.
Earlier today, I mentioned what you commented in another forum, and wise person pointed out to me that that it's the rural stations that will be affected most by this.
When you consider the rural media options, this will be a huge shift in those markets if the funding is not replaced.
This is generally worse UX vs. just opening Safari. There have been exactly zero times where I was happy that a link opened in an app's WebView, instead of in Safari or the appropriate external app.
Why does a seemingly privacy-focused Apple create the compromisable WebView system for apps? Is there some weird edge case for apps that they need this, for a non-evil reason?
They don’t allow third party browser engines. If they didn’t allow web view they are effectively banning third party browsers completely. I can’t imagine that would make their anti trust problems any better.
Although, it does seem like they could get more granular in app approval, which I am sure iOS devs would not like, but users would. For example, "If your app's primary use case is navigation of the open web, you may use WebView to handle 3rd party links. However, if that is not the primary purpose of your app, web links must open in iOS."
Either that, or give me a setting for each app, which the dev can set the default on. "Open links in Safari."
There’s a permission for Location at least, “In App Web Browsing” can have that permission disabled. Web Views don’t seem to have similar treatment otherwise, afaict. I’d sandbox them aggressively if I could .
I use Adguard which has a Safari integration that appears to apply to Web Views (based on the absence of ads), though I don’t have proof of that.
Well, just off the top of my head, an epub is basically HTML and is simple to implement with a web view. Nice when the OS has a framework that provides one.
I am not sure that you can make that absolute statement. Reasoning is subdivided into types, and one of those types is inductive reasoning.
> Inductive reasoning refers to a variety of methods of reasoning in which the conclusion of an argument is supported not with deductive certainty, but with some degree of probability. Unlike deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion is certain, given the premises are correct, inductive reasoning produces conclusions that are at best probable, given the evidence provided.
Doesn't predicting the next token qualify as doing just that?
An LLM is not a Markov process. They are fundamentally different. An LLM conditions the next token prediction on the entire context window (via the attention mechanism), not just the previous token. Besides the token history window it also maintains a cache of neural activations which is updated at every step.
Otherwise you could use the same reasoning to argue that a human is a Markov process, which is absurd, but vacuously true if "state" means the quantum level configuration of every atom in the body.
To push back on this, a somewhat recent Linus Torvalds ~quote:
"I don't think that 'just predicting the next word' is the insult that people think it is, it's mostly what we all do."
If we break our lives down into the different types of reasoning, and what we mostly do day-to-day, this rings very true to me.
I currently believe that our brains generally operate as very efficient inference machines. Sometimes we slow down to think things through, but for example, when in the ideal "flow state" it's some kind of distilled efficient inference. Isn't it? This is very hard for me to deny at this time.
___
edit:
4o appears to agree with both of you, more than it does with me.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me this also is a case of improper use of words.
Those LLMs neither agree nor disagree. They do not understand. They produce output, and we read that output and we ourselves consider the output to be something, or something else.
All an LLM does is produce output. There's no conceptual understanding behind it, and so there is no agreement, or disagreement.
> All an LLM does is produce output. There's no conceptual understanding behind it, and so there is no agreement, or disagreement.
I think that I agree. However, even on HN, what percentage of human comments are simply some really basic inference, aka output/"reddit"/etc... and those are humans.
I am not trying to elevate LLMs to some form of higher intelligence, my only point is that most of the time, we are not all that much better. Even the 0.000001% best of us fall into these habits sometimes. [0]
I currently believe that modern LLM architecture will likely not lead to AGI/ASI. However, even without that, they could do a lot.
LLMs learn high-dimensional representations that capture conceptual relationships in their training data. They manipulate those representations in ways that approximate human reasoning.
System 1 is rapid, uses heuristics to make quick judgements. Not rigorous. System 1 is the default mode.
System 2 is slow deliberate reasoning, energy intensive, and even humans get that wrong.
LLMs often use something like System 1 pattern matching, get the answer wrong initially, then can be prodded into trying again with a System 2 approach (chain of thought).
> Now he’s talking publicly for the first time. Under pressure from Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg to monetize WhatsApp, he pushed back as Facebook questioned the encryption he'd helped build and laid the groundwork to show targeted ads and facilitate commercial messaging. Acton also walked away from Facebook a year before his final tranche of stock grants vested. “It was like, okay, well, you want to do these things I don’t want to do,” Acton says. “It’s better if I get out of your way. And I did.” It was perhaps the most expensive moral stand in history. Acton took a screenshot of the stock price on his way out the door—the decision cost him $850 million.
> It’s also a story any idealistic entrepreneur can identify with: What happens when you build something incredible and then sell it to someone with far different plans for your baby? “At the end of the day, I sold my company,” Acton says. “I sold my users’ privacy to a larger benefit. I made a choice and a compromise. And I live with that every day.”
A nightmare scenario for LLMs is becoming another dealer of cheap dopamine hits, using your personal history, your anxieties, and whatever else it can infer from you to keep you hooked.
Because I would test if it's keeping its word, like periodically or spontaneously asking both whether it can _import_ the context from one chat to another or, judging the conversational flow between topics.
Maybe we're on different wavelengths on this issue but practically speaking, it hasn't spilled or splattered contexts from different chat topics.. yet.
I'm seeing so many complains that 4o became a yes man, but I wonder if anyone ever used Gemini. What an egregiously sycophant persona. Users are blasted with infantile positive reinforcements just by posting a damn prompt.
UN Security Council seat: yes, of course! What an ignorant question.
Responsible for the damage done by the USSR in other countries: certainly not! How dare you!
reply