Jasmine rice. Makes a huge difference if you like white rice. Tastes like from a restaurant and pleasantly sticky.
Jasmine rice. Makes a huge difference if you like white rice. Tastes like from a restaurant and pleasantly sticky.
Absolutely. It’s why asking it for facts is inherently bad. It can’t retain information, it is trained to give output shaped like an answer. It’s pretty good at things that don’t have a specific answer (I’ll never write another cover letter thank blob).
Now, if someone were to have the good sense to have some kind of lookup to inject correct information between the prompt and the output, we’d be cooking with gas. But that’s really human labor intensive and all the tech bros are trying to avoid that.
Gradient descent is a common algorithm in machine learning (AI* is a subset of machine learning algorithms). It refers to using math to determine how wrong an answer is in a particular direction and adjusting the algorithm to be less wrong using that information.
Best use I’ve had for them (data engineer here) is things that don’t have a specific answer. Need a cover letter? Perfect. Script for a presentation? Gets 95% of the work done. I never ask for information since it has no capability to retain a fact.
Bodybuilding and powerlifting would like a word.
This is my line for biting the bullet and switching to Linux. I hope gaming gets to where I want it to be (braindead easy for anyone with ‘actually’ on their lips)
Absolutely. I’ll poke my head in there when there’s someone on insta who I’m curious to see if they get naked on Twitter. And that’s 100% of my interaction.
When I was taking classes on similar things, ‘human performance’ was generally defined as how well an expert in a given task performed.
These. Also, random celebrity factoids (height, married, dead, etc), how long to get to some town you’ve never heard of, basic math that I’m too lazy to do myself.
Sometimes making it meow to confuse my cat.
A little bit of everyone? Watchers create demand for creators, which creates demand for hosts. If any link in this chain breaks, then the little ecosystem dies.
Though that’s both difficult and reductive. Punishing hosts drives watchers to shadier hosts, with creators following. Punishing creators just creates space for other creators to fill the gap with unpredictable content (be it more of the same, better, worse, or other). Punishing watchers is resource intensive to do well, so the focus has to be on the really bad stuff to get anything done. And conjures articles like these when done poorly.
I imagine the mental gymnastics are way easier if you’re uninformed about how things work.
Does it qualify as bad faith if I ask my previous questions knowing that he had nothing and/or complete unhinged nonsense?
Fair, I intended that more as an idiom really. I mean whether or not the punishment goes through. He’s so damned slippery I’m not taking anything as truth until the buildings have been seized/ he’s in jail.
But yeah, they did make up their minds there.
Is this not the point of a trial? To ascertain fact and adjudicate appropriately? Hell, this is explicitly the point of a grand jury, to determine if a trial is merited in the first place. And they’ve found, several times, that taking the charges to trial is justified. Not even that he’s guilty, but that it’s worth looking into.
Additionally, what facts am I missing? He wasn’t exactly subtle with seeking to commit crimes (“Only stupid people pay taxes” comes to mind as a softball, but the fact that he was never held to the emoluments clause also stands out. Plus all the fraud and rape). Where is the misunderstanding in all this? He was found to be a rapist by a judge. He was found to have committed fraud by a different judge.
Yes, holding a person accountable for their crimes (maybe, jury is still out) is attacking them…
Unless you’re talking media coverage. Cause we all know that the media is an arm of the government…
My brain despises econ and I always struggle with it. But that first paragraph smells like “MBAs cooked up a justification for why they don’t pay taxes that doesn’t actually make any sense”.
The second bit makes me wonder “why don’t we have some authority on evaluating the worth of CEOs?”. Insert joke here about that worth being 0. And then I remember that the CEOs are the ones that would have to pay the government to make that rule.
A little bit. He doesn’t strike me as the type to keep the quiet part quiet.
Checks which community I’m in. Yeah that checks out.
Yeah, without that edit, I was immediately in “burn the bootlicker” mode. You make a valid consideration.
It does. I was looking something up and ran face first into a redacted account that once had the answer I needed. I was very conflicted about it.