Reading the comments, is it safe to say that LLMs are a digest of the internet which is some update over google search, but with the caveat that you need to double check the results? I mean they basically have some compressed version of almost all the written knowledge and will respond correctly about things that have already been written, and hallucinate (extrapolate) about things not explicitly written. Of course if someone carefully curates the input data to filter out misinformation, it might even be an upgrade over google. Is there a consensus on this?
The author claims to be able to tell AI content. I am wondering, is there any test to help me train to distinguish AI content? Like: this paragraph is written by a human this by an AI and see how well we all do?
I am wondering what will come to save us from this AI storm. It looks like online search and social networks will be more or less dead. Maybe we will start going out again.
I think the point is that string theory is a huge model with so many parameters that it can fit everything. This is overfitting. Because of that it does not have predicting power.
The point about stability is that as the curve of stability is not a straight line. That is as the number of nucleons increases, you need proportionally more and more neutron to be stable. So you cannot just smash small nuclei together to form bigger ones. Somehow you need to add some extra neutrons.
You are certainly right for the higher level higher paying jobs that look for elite candidates. How would you modify your answer to also include less experienced candidates who are looking for something to specialize and build complex products for?
Not a surprise, CL's most marketable advantage is that it is infinitely moldable.
It has the most powerful macro system which enables one to define arbitrary syntax, essentially creating mini languages. So, CL is flexible enough to be able to create many languages without changing its fundamentals, such as those in the article. CL is like clay,not even lego bricks. And while this sounds wonderful and liberating, you end up having to learn many different mini languages for each library you use. I like this idea(l), but I do not have sophisticated enough needs to use it (I wish, feel free to hire me on a common lisp project, anyone), but I can imagine that for most programmers that much flexibility may become a source agony, especially if they need to work with other people's code, essentially having to learn (frequently badly?) designed mini languages.
The take home and "easy to digest" conclusion is that the proton is a linear superposition of states. The most likely of these states (the ones with highest amplitude) have 3 quarks. The second most likely have 5 quarks. When you make an observation you may see 3 or 5 quarks.
> For example, Axiom's integrator gives you the answer when an answer exists. If one does not, it provides a proof that there is no answer. Integration is just one of a multitude of symbolic operations that Axiom provides.
What does "an answer exists" in this case? Is axiom able to prove that an integral does not have an answer mathematically, which seems impressive, or just that it can not be found using its own substitucion rules?