Snafus

That website is pure gold lmao, they absolutely knew

That's the point

I only know it exists because I use it to remember a friend's birthday (spain)

You can't just write "degrees kelvin" in a science community and expect a pedant not to come up, you know?

I don't disagree but this meme is ass lmao

This post is about spam calls, which you'll only get more of if you answer them.

Until a court rules in favour of this no one will budge as this is just an opinion. I do hope it comes to that as since Spain ruled that charging for not planting cookies was a okay browsing news sites has been miserable.

If I'm being completely honest, now that I've woken up with a fresh mind, I have no idea where I was going with that last part. Giving LLMs access to tools like running code so that they can fact check or whatever is a really good idea (that is already being tried) but I don't think it has anything to do with the problem at hand.

The real key issue (I think) is getting AI to keep learning and iterating over itself past the training stage. Which is actually what many people call AGI/the "singularity".

It is true that newer models that have ingested more training data are better at this kind of thing, but it is not because they are using logic, but because they are copying and following examples they already learnt, if that makes sense. I got the question from a test passed to kids ages 12-13, so arguably it wasn't really that challenging. If you want to you can try out the more advanced problems from the same place I got it from, although it's in Spanish, so pass it through Google Translate first.

If you turn to programmers they'll tell you that AI usually makes mistakes no human would normally make such as inventing variables that don't exist and that kind of thing. It is because in the examples it learnt from they have mostly existed.

What I mean to say is, if you give an AI a problem that is not in its training data and can only be solved using logic (so, you can't apply what is used in other problems) it will be incapable of solving it. The Internet is so vast that almost everything has been written about so AIs will seem to know how to solve any problem, but it is no more than an illusion.

HOWEVER, if we manage to integrate AIs and normal, mathematical computation really closely so that they function as one, that problem might be solved. It will probably also have its caveats, though.

Logic. As an example, non textbook math questions. I asked ChatGPT 3.5 this:

Four friends (A, B, C and D) are standing in line. How many combinations are possible given that A and C cannot be next to eachother?

It answered 20, the correct answer is 12.

(- also Catholicism)

There are many kinds of evil, and also the morally gray. Evil doesn't have to be evil just for the sake of it.

At the end of the day, these kinds of videogames tell stories, and a story full with nonsensical evil will only appeal to those freaks you talked about. In the other hand, if it is handled correctly, the story will appeal to a much broader audience. As an example, at the end of The Last Of Us (the show, idk about the game), the main character refuses to save the world because it would mean the death of the only family he had left, and massacres a lot of people in a mix of survival instinct and paternalistic rage. It is horrible from a moral perspective yet it is a good, engaging story.

I feel like, in the same sense, a character with impenetrable morality and no conflict would not be very entertaining to read/watch/play.

As for the workload, I'd rather they didn't give me the option to be evil if the story is going to be bad. The devs themselves choose to make different paths, so at least have them be equally fun. (I'm not getting into pressures from above for "branching narratives" or any other marketable terms. Replace devs with "studios" if you wish.)

How will small artists get to make themselves known, though? Not everyone has the option to play live.

Counterpoint: C function pointers (or just C in general)

As a spaniard, that jamón is offending me.

There have been some theories on this phenomenon, with the most prevalent being the tendency for Wikipedia pages to move up a "classification chain". According to this theory, the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines on how to write the lead section of an article recommend that articles begin by defining the topic of the article. A consequence of this style is that the first sentence of an article is almost always a definitional statement, a direct answer to the question "what is [the subject]?"

As much as I want them to give HDMI the middle finger I don't think they have enough leverage in the GPU market to pull such a bold move off.

I recommend watching a youtube recap of the history of the fandom as it really helps contextualize the whole comic, and it is quite fun, as such an excentric comic attracted an equally excentric fanbase. There are plenty of fun and gross anecdotes. As for the bucket, you can watch for yourself, but let me warn you...

I got into it blind and only learned about the fandom and the surrounding history after finishing it. It felt like reading a parallel story and it was actually pretty fun, but it only cemented my feeling of not wanting to be associated with them. I mean, the bucket. Just wow.