I think it's a little more complicated than that. In a 50 First Dates type of scenario, their ability to form certain types of memories is damaged, not non-existent. And I would argue that with enough brain damage someone like an extreme lobotomy victim may stop being considered conscious.
I'm more interested in what a virtual body would entail. To me the root of this idea is around persistent state which is something that currently LLMs do not have. Imagine if somehow your brain lacked long-term memory forming capabilities and instead each day when you woke up you had to read a notebook with (markdown formatted) instructions that you wrote the day before? I wouldn't be surprised if such a person lacked in many of the dimensions we consider important for consciousness, even in less sophisticated forms of life like dogs or mice.
Something I've found under discussed when it comes to artificial consciousness is how LLMs interact with the passage of time. I don't know exactly how to articulate this idea but don't see how something which takes an input, performs a calculation and stops can be considered conscious regardless of how life-like the responses end up being. I don't see context windows or the ability to reference a clock each time they are triggered as sufficient solutions. It makes me wonder what an AI system that is ON by default would look like.
It's only declaration by fiat if you stop reading at the end of the title. Should authors add a qualifier like in my opinion to every statement that they make?
The essay structure you're criticizing is exactly how I was taught to write from primary school through to university. You start with a title or hook, introduce the topic and propose a thesis. That is followed up upon with supporting arguments for the primary claim.
I find that I typically have a few services that I need to start-up and sometimes they have different mechanisms for start-up and shutdown. Sometimes you need to instantiate an object first, sometimes you have a context you want to cancel, other times you have a "Stop" method to call.
I designed the library to help my consolidate this all in one place with a unified API.
I assisted a past company with transition from Jenkins to GitHub Actions and some of the things you mentioned also came up for us although we did not self-host. It's been a while but I'll try to comment to the best of my recollection.
I think Jenkins makes it easier to support some less than ideal patterns because of how customizable it is.
Tracking the % of test failures across builds and normalizing failing tests rather than treating even one test failure as a critical issue that blocks the build. For test coverage we had to introduce a 3rd party tool like CodeCov or Coveralls.
I have rarely found it necessary to trigger CI workflow for a past commit. Even without dispatch parameters, you can rerun failed jobs from the web UI. If you are using workflows to deploy artifacts then I found it more straightforward to separate the testing and generation of artifacts from their deployment. So instead of building a testing, building and deploying a container all in one workflow you would instead store your artifacts in a central location and then specify the tag that you wish to deploy without rebuilding.
I also found that because we were self-hosting Jenkins and additional instances to run CI are relatively affordable there was very little emphasis put on performance and efficiency so over the years this had led up to almost 1 hour builds per commit which added up when multiplied across many developers and open PRs. I found that by splitting some repos and consolidating others we could bring this down substantially.
Also I am not sure if you're aware but there are some 3rd party managed GitHub Actions providers out there which make work as a compromise for you between hosting your own and using the runners provided by GitHub.
I would say they are similar but the focus is more on controlling everything through Git rather than IaC which leaves this ambiguous and can require updating the Git repo and then visiting a dashboard to press a button to check the repo and apply it.
Once you dig deep enough into many tech buzzwords you'll find that that different people can mean slightly different things with the same words. Some may consider special PR comments to control infrastructure operations as a form of GitOps because what would otherwise be a button in a dashboard now lives alongside the Git history in GitHub.
The rest of the world also printed a lot of money. In a globalized economy inflation does remain isolated in the country that it originates in. Especially when the country has a lot of exports.
Normally the exchange rate divergence could be countered by increasing interest rates in the country with the weakening currency. But today it appears most countries are not willing to do this to the extent necessary.
Would you have been against granting Israeli work permits to Palestinians or allowing funding to to enter Gaza?
I read the article you shared and other than the unconfirmed paraphrasing of Netanyahu at the 2019 meeting, the actual policies come across as something that would work to improve relations. Work permits, more freedom, "turning a blind eye" to sustained rocket attacks.
No, because the advertised additional security may cause people to do things that they would not otherwise have done had they not falsely believed the security claims on the newer protocol.
Does this mean that all the third party logging packages will likely die out in the future? Or will they likely implement adapters to be compatible with the std interface?
Isn't what you're describing basically React Native? I think the Flutter devs wanted to try a different approach to address what they felt were the shortcomings of React Native which brings along its own set of tradeoffs.