I learned “real” programming in the early 90’s by learning Elisp to customize Emacs. (Before that the only languages I’d written in by choice were C64 Basic and Assembler.) Like the OP, I used Elisp for everything - scripts to bulk-edit files, manage the file system, format posts, etc. etc.
Unlike the OP I hated the scratch buffer for running Elisp, so I created a REPL for Elisp that behaved more (in my naive eyes) as a real language. I was very excited when RMS emailed me to ask to include it in Emacs. Last I checked (a few years ago now) it was still there as M-x ielm (Inferior Emacs Lisp Mode).
Qantas (I think, it’s possible it was BA) used the upper deck for economy and it was my favourite place to sit. The window seat had a little locker between your seat and the window (the curvature of the fuselage meant the seat couldn’t be right up against the window). It was a great place to keep all your stuff accessible without having to bother the aisle seat to get up to the overhead storage.
Excel 97 had an easier egg where if you entered a certain formula into a certain cell, a flight simulator would be invoked. In the flight simulator, you could fly to see an obelisk that listed the developer credits.
>> The first requirement is that the computer program has a body (either physical or virtual) and sense organs
LLMs may be chameleons, but, to steal an excellent quote, if you can’t tell does it really matter.
My personal take on this is that consciousness is a thing induced, not a thing evoked. If it generates a response on the observer as a conscious thing would it is, by my definition, conscious.
This entire essay basically boils down to one simple contention: LLMs can’t be conscious because only humans can be conscious and LLMs are not human.
What an unimaginative argument: essentially ruling out the possibility of the title by definition. And the author fails to touch on the really interesting question posed by the article’s title: what if human consciousness is more like the working of LLMs than we think?
Cameras are not a suitable replacement for rear-vision mirrors for the same reason that screens are not a suitable replacement. It’s even addressed in TFA: focal length.
>>> But more importantly, current screen technology requires the driver to focus on the surface of the screen itself, which is mere feet away from their eyes. This is a large change in focal distance from looking at the road ahead.
If you’re over the age of 40 or so, it takes time, a few hundred milliseconds at least, to refocus your gaze distance. A screen is near. When driving, you’re looking far. A mirror is something to glance at.
I test-drove a Polestar with a screen for a rear-vision mirror (and no actual rear window) and it was completely undrivable for me. It takes longer for my eyes to refocus on the near distance than I feel comfortable removing my gaze from the road ahead. I turned around after 10 minutes and returned it to the lot.
Citation needed. Very little of what we buy today as a consumer are commodities whose price is determined primarily by the cost of production — and even then labor costs are rarely the most significant cost.
Most things we buy are priced according to what the consumer is willing to pay for it, and the balance sheet of the companies that sell most of the things we buy show there’s a lot of wiggle room there.
This is what I do, but it comes with its own set of problems, the most significant of which is deliverability. Some businesses can’t deliver mail to my custom domain at all (a fact I can only discover by trial and error). Some can deliver, but the forwarding to @gmail fails silently — Google just eats the mail without so much as a bounce, let alone dropping it into a spam folder.
It’s the best option we have, but it’s no solution to the crapshoot that is email today.
Don’t take up baking then, where the difference between 175 mLs of water and 200 mLs of water can be the difference between unworkable dough and the perfect pie crust.
This is all correct. To add some additional colour, the “slap save” is a form of tilting a beginner player can learn easily. If the ball is coming almost down the middle (but not exactly so), slap the flipper button of the closest flipper when the ball gets close. Slap it quickly with your flat hand. Slap it HARD.
The sharp impulse won’t trigger the tilt mechanism, but it may displace the playfield just enough for the flipper to touch the ball when it otherwise wouldn’t. If all goes well the ball will deflect to the other (lowered) flipper, bounce off it, and allow you to continue play in front of your amazed friends.
Ever wondered why there are few merlot vineyards in Napa these days? Dozens of vineyards are uprooted and replanted each year in that tiny valley alone in response to market demand.
I'd be interested to learn where those words exist in Cursor's context. My assumption was that it was part of the Cursor agent harness, but it's just as likely it was in the user instructions.
My husband and I play Wingspan together when I’m traveling for work. He likes board games in general, so it’s something familiar for both of us. And Wingspan is complex enough to reward skill, but also random enough that the outcome isn’t guaranteed when players are of different levels.
As pointed out in the sibling thread, this isn’t DDG’s fault. Reddit has an exclusive agreement with Google [1] to index Reddit content, and other web search sites are blocked.
Unlike the OP I hated the scratch buffer for running Elisp, so I created a REPL for Elisp that behaved more (in my naive eyes) as a real language. I was very excited when RMS emailed me to ask to include it in Emacs. Last I checked (a few years ago now) it was still there as M-x ielm (Inferior Emacs Lisp Mode).