Even before LLMs, proving that a specific human wrote some piece of text was difficult or imprecise due to coauthoring, editing, plagiarism, etc. The important question then, as now, is rather to determine whether a specific human approved some piece of text for publication under their name.
This is wrong, given only the text of the article. The two books explicitly listed are not banned in Portugal or anywhere else. They are simply not subsidized with public money in some libraries.
Only two books are explicitly listed by the article, neither of which have been banned anywhere.
Unsubsidized is the more accurate word here. Some governments have chosen not to pay public money to stock these books in libraries, but no government has created criminal penalties for ownership.
It may be the case that her library includes some books that genuinely carry criminal penalties, but the article does not provide enough info to assess that.
It behooves every company working on some form of actual AI to immediately switch branding to distance themselves from the slop bots. Call it image recognition, automated translate, inventory automation, what have you.
I tried to use claude for a completely menial task yesterday, adding some resistant-starch foods to my diet, and it was worse than useless. Actively wasting my time with claims that buckled as soon as I questioned them and completely falsified citations from product pages that it recommended.
If you are branding your product as "AI" when these word salad spitters are still dominating headlines, you deserve all the headwinds coming to you.
On other topics I imagine the conversation would flow better and, I hope, be just as lively and engaging. But to be direct, no, I'm not eager to continue when universes that admit contradictions are on the table. A conversation that permits contradictions is not likely to be productive. So I'll be content to just restate my point. Cheers!
No, again, I have made no assumptions. I have made the observation (as others may, just as easily) that no one will ever succeed in describing a scenario or a universe where modus ponens is violated.
Modus ponens holds regardless of whether it is assumed correct or not. By that, I mean that excepting contradictions, not only are no counterexamples known, but it is known that none will ever be found.
So I decline to adopt your convention of classifying it as an assumption. It might be more accurate to call it an observation.
"We’ve established that the truth or falsity of a statement depends on its context — that is, on the assumptions we take as true or false in order to justify it."
I am inexplicably and disproportionately irritated by people like this. They've an a priori commitment to epistemic relativism. Unnaturally allergic to any claim that certainty is possible, and dedicated to undoing the careful work of those who are building up what may be known.
No, not every statement requires assumptions in order to hold. "The assumptions A implies B and B implies C, taken together, yield A implies C." This statement contains assumptions and makes observations about them, but it is true regardless of whether the assumptions it describes are true. The statement as a whole is "true" in the exact sense that the no counterexample to it can ever be given in any universe, under any set of assumptions.
I cannot wait for the day that Lean and other proof systems become accessible enough, conversant enough, and interdisciplinary enough to put these eternal confusion peddlers out of business.
A hobby project I've been working on for a few weekends. Picked it up because I've been wanting to learn Rust by writing something simple.
I've found a lot to enjoy about programming with Rust. Some minor complaints:
- The syntax does not always make clear whether copy or move will happen on assignment. You need to manually go look at the object signature to see if it implements copy. This bit me once or twice.
- std::time::Duration as_millis() returns a u128, but from_millis() requires a u64, so you have to cast.
- Rust object methods accept a &Self param, but this is hidden when you call it. This convention exists in other languages, so I'm not sure where it originated, but it is a minor irk for me that the function signature and call don't match.
I've hit this problem multiple times. The approach which finally eased this pain point for me was to take care to not overwrite any tmux defaults with my config, and only add non-conflicting configs (new shortcuts, styling changes, etc.) That way, if I need to use tmux on a new or unfamiliar machine, the core functionality is still present, and I just miss the candy that comes with customization.
For example, leave the existing prefix binding (ctrl-b), but also add something nicer for day-to-day use (ctrl-space or similar).
I don't use Windows at home. What happens if you don't have Outlook but your personal local files still fill up OneDrive storage? Do you get error messages that files aren't being backed up? Are you unable to save files?
Just beautiful. I love that the pattern appears stable but diverges after 5 mins or so. Is the initial state proven to be stable under exact conditions?