SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225
Or that your eye balled estimate of your dick as actually 12 inches long is of any value...
I'll have you know that I didn't just eyeball it, I eyeballed it really hard
This causes problems - he has a lot of just funny shit, low brow humor, and satisfying basic chicken soup plotting (think Star Wars original trilogy).
Yeah, Shakespeare is hilarious but some of the jokes definitely don't land without footnotes. Like in Hamlet:
"May I lie in your lap?" "No, my lord." "I mean my head in your lap." "Ay, my lord." "What, did you think I meant country matters [sex]?" "I think nothing, my lord." "That's a fair thought, to lie between maids' legs." "What?" "Nothing."
That scene is funny as hell if you know that "nothing" was used as slang for the vagina, and that Shakespeare was doing the equivalent of making "pussy" double entendres. But that's something most people aren't going to know without having it pointed out, which just makes the scene confusing to a modern audience.
I enjoy Shakespeare because the language is beautiful (as @HereAndGone2 said), but also because I find the way in which he highlights the universality of the human condition to be deeply moving. I remember when I was young and I finally understood the meaning of Hamlet's "to be or not to be" soliloquy (rather than just bouncing off the language). It was a formative moment for me, realizing that his topic (wishing to die, but being too afraid of what comes after to death to commit suicide) was something that was still relevant to modern people. It made me realize that humans through all the years have felt the same kinds of feelings we do, and struggled with the same kinds of things we do.
Also seconding that Shakespeare meant his work to be performed, not read. I still enjoy reading his plays, but seeing them performed brings a lot to the experience.
Awesome! I'm glad to hear you guys got some positive news!
Yes, the bar here is "what humans can do". You're welcome to set the bar somewhere else if you like, but that is what I think is the appropriate bar to set. Humans are the apex of creatures in this world, and it just plain makes sense to me to compare our invention to us.
To be clear, I wasn't making the claim, it was a genuine question. I do recall reading stories in the past where the model creators basically cheated on benchmarks, but did not know if that was the case here or if it was a genuine improvement.
Metaphysics aside, it has been blindingly obvious for a long time that LLMs do not have intelligence or reasoning ability. Look at tests like "how many R's are in strawberry", which could be passed by even the stupidest human as long as he had enough intelligence to have learned the alphabet. But LLMs fell flat on their face. And that's not the only instance; this stuff keeps happening. Whether or not LLMs are useful (I personally do not find them useful, as I've said in previous comments), they are most certainly not intelligent.
It's worth pointing out that within a day, the AIs had gotten to 36%
Is that because they actually improved at problem solving, or because the companies running the models gave them answers? I seem to recall that they have been caught doing the latter before, which is why people strive to test these things with new questions as much as possible.
What? We just got a new book this year. Before that we got a new book (technically two, but it was effectively one story) in 2020. He hasn't stalled out at all.
But it hasn't. People still get diseases, they still starve, and there's still war. Science has mitigated the first two things, sure (it really can't solve war as that's a problem of the human heart), but it hasn't solved them.
You dropped this, king: 👑
I'm 40 years old and I didn't know. It's not relevant to my life; why would I bother to retain that information?
Nah. I got 275, and have been amused by the "oh no, I got 290, I suck so bad!" posts. 😂
I don't think it's brain dead, it just means he doesn't have a reference point to compare to. @Corvos mentioned that would be 1/8 of all people on earth, but if you don't know there are 8 billion people on earth (I certainly didn't), then that doesn't help you as a heuristic. If you don't happen to know any reference point on which to base an estimate, and if you're being asked in a setting where you have to answer off the cuff (which he was, since it was on his show), then your answer isn't going to really have any bearing on how smart (or not) you are.
If that's the case, that is dirty pool given he didn't say "misspellings don't count" up front. I chalked the misspellings up to test creator error, and picked them (except for one where there was a misspelling and the correct spelling both as options).
I saw a study recently that claimed that it's quite literally healthier to be a pack a day smoker with an active social life than a wellness guru who has no friends.
I seriously doubt that is true (the study's claim, not that you saw it). I would need a lot of evidence to be convinced of such an incredible claim, like years of studies repeatedly finding that to be true.
my parents did this to me as a child/teenager (now ~20 years ago, yikes!). Even back then, not having a blackberry/dumb cellphone was rapidly causing social issues as adoption pumped. And finally at the end of grade 9 my parents, realizing this, started listening to my pleading and got me a phone.
I mean I'm the same age or very similar, and I experienced no such issues. I think that part of growing up is learning to shrug off people who are jerks and who mistreat you for petty reasons. Yes, kids are super sensitive to being shut out of things, but they need to learn to ignore that to be well-adjusted adults.
Alcohol isn't required for social participation. I very rarely drink and I've never once had someone insist that I have to drink. Someone who makes a point of not drinking and gets sanctimonious will find himself excluded, but nobody cares about a person who just happens to not drink.
Sure, that's reasonable enough. My impression is that people mean the heroin end of the spectrum (not beer) when they make the comparison, but perhaps it will turn out to be more like beer.
The fucking problem with this shit is even if you don't let your kids have a smartphone with social media apps, if you send them to school, every single friend of theirs does and they use these social apps to communicate and bond and if your kid is the weirdo without one they feel unable to function socially and hate you every day for restricting them.
Kids have hated their parents for placing restrictions for their own good since time immemorial. Doesn't make it ok to give up though (to be clear: I'm not accusing you of giving up, just that many parents do seem to give up these days). If social media truly is tantamount to doing drugs in terms of the harm it causes kids (as I've seen alleged), then even being a complete social outcast is less bad for the kid than being on social media.
God knows nobody is likely to pay much for pictures of my bussy
Aren't they into that kind of thing over on rdrama?
"Content" is a very poor standard for the quality of a game: meaningful, interesting content is far harder to create than churning out procedural junk or trying to fake it with busywork.
Hard agree. I like to point to Chrono Trigger as a great example of this: yeah, the game is only 20 hours long, but it's tight. They trimmed every bit of fat off that game, so that you're never sitting around doing busy work or enduring an area that goes on long past when it's interesting. I'll take that any day over a game which is 100 hours but only 30% of that time is actually interesting.
Not AI itself, but I did see someone on HN claim they feel like they are finally good at programming because of AI... then go on to say that they haven't written any code in months.
I recently remarked to a friend that I probably wouldn't care about AI if it wasn't causing people to act retarded. Whether through stunning displays or ignorance like the one I mentioned, corpos shoving it down my throat when I never asked for it, or the insane tech industry push that you simply must use it for work, the hype train annoys the absolute shit out of me. But it's really not the tech's fault - if not for people acting stupid I would just go "meh, not very useful to me" and move on with my life. As usual, humans ruin things.
isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?
He actually jokes about that in one of the songs he made. At one point the song goes "Why does the warrant say narcotics and - ok, I know about the narcotics (laugh) but why the kidnapping?".
Being physically attracted to someone is an extreme prerequisite for wanting to spend the rest of your life with them.
It doesn't seem to be for women. I've seen too many instances of "woman falls in love for another reason, finds guy physically attractive now that she's in love with him" to chalk it up to coincidence. I don't know why, but it certainly seems to be common from what I've seen.
- Prev
- Next

53% German, 47% autistic. Like @Southkraut I agreed with three of the answers to most questions. Genetically I am 1/8 German (7/8 Polish), so I guess the one great-grandparent's genes are working real hard in me.
More options
Context Copy link