> So, other than “GPT-3 isn’t an AGI” [1], I’m not sure what to take away from this article
This is the takeaway:
"[GPT-3 don’t learn about the world—they learn about text and how people use words in relation to other words. What it does is something like a massive act of cutting and pasting, stitching variations on text that it has seen, rather than digging deeply for the concepts that underlie those texts.
Its performance is unreliable, causal understanding is shaky, and incoherence is a constant companion. GPT-2 had problems with biological, physical, psychological, and social reasoning, and a general tendency toward incoherence and non sequiturs. GPT-3 does, too.
All GPT-3 really has is a tunnel-vision understanding of how words relate to one another; it does not, from all those words, ever infer anything about the blooming, buzzing world."
I prefer epubs because it it endlessly customizable and modifiable.
If I am unhappy with the styling of an epub I have, I just dive in and change it. It's nothing but html and css underneath. Don't like the image? Replace it.
When reading, I like adding my thoughts on the margins of a paper book. Want to add some annotation in an epub but has to look different than the original content? Easily done. I just create a copy of the epub, set-aside the original, and change the copy.
I never wanted to convert from epub to pdf since that would freeze the book's contents. I always find myself converting from pdf to epub.
Its only natural to speak a native language between interlocutors who share it because its the most effortless way to talk between them. I don't think it is rude, especially if you're not part of the conversation and you're in your own cubicle within earshot even if its an open office. However, if you are right bang in front of them and not a stranger to them, it would be respectful to speak in English, so you don't feel excluded.
Being able to speak another language apart from the common language (e.g. English) to anyone in the office provided it does not exclude those who should be excluded because of work or social activity/event is in the spirit of diversity and inclusion. The opposite is not.
Exactly. I worked in Business Intelligence and having both an accountant and a programmer background, whiteboard coding never comes up in interviews. Its more domain knowledge that's important, which is mostly about finance/accountancy.
>I should wish to die while still at work, knowing that others will carry on what I can no longer do and content in the thought that what was possible has been done.
I fear death because I fear no one will look after the things that I cared about in the same passion and in the same way that I do. I guess I am too sentimental for what I've done to the things I love.
"....the problem with this place is it's too consistent. And consistency is death. A chef should strive to be consistent in experience, but not consistent in taste. It's like sex. It's like, you're always headed to the same place, but you got to find new and dangerous way of getting there."
The difference between the theory of evolution and the "theory of gravity" is that tests about gravity are reproducible and repeatable, but not tests on evolutionary theory. One can not test/replicate evolution happening over millions of years. This is why evolution will forever be a theory. Evolution is not a fact. Its a post-facto explanation, where fossils are made to fit a theory.
>The problem is not that field theory doesn't tell you "what happens" when you divide by 0 - you haven't defined that, there is no what happens because nothing happens at all.
This is intuitively mistaken. If "when you divide by 0 .. nothing happens at all", then how come multiplication by 0 is zero, when they're both operations against 0? The problem is that mathematicians have forgotten the meaning of 0. Anything multiplied by zero is zero. Anything divided by zero is zero. This agrees with normal intuition on working with nothingness, and the original idea from Brahmagupta.[
https://www.storyofmathematics.com/indian_brahmagupta.html]
I say this is bullshit. It looks like black-white dichotomy because we frame it as passion-vs-work. Even if we are passionate about something, there will always be parts that are boring and feels like work. That does not mean we are not following our passion. Far from it. It's like love or sleep. You fall for it, you do not actively and directly chase it. Passions find us, and we are made aware, yet they also need to be developed. If you have not encountered your passion yet, it just means either that you are not self-aware, you're ignoring the signs, you're at the wrong place, you haven't tried a lot of things yet....so many reasons.
This is the takeaway:
"[GPT-3 don’t learn about the world—they learn about text and how people use words in relation to other words. What it does is something like a massive act of cutting and pasting, stitching variations on text that it has seen, rather than digging deeply for the concepts that underlie those texts.
Its performance is unreliable, causal understanding is shaky, and incoherence is a constant companion. GPT-2 had problems with biological, physical, psychological, and social reasoning, and a general tendency toward incoherence and non sequiturs. GPT-3 does, too.
All GPT-3 really has is a tunnel-vision understanding of how words relate to one another; it does not, from all those words, ever infer anything about the blooming, buzzing world."