V0ldek

Does anyone know what's inside that bill? I've seen it thrown around but never with any concretes.

MDMA, however, is meth; it’s literally its name: thre-four-methylene-deoxy-methamphetamine

Rust, however, is iron; it's literally in the name iron oxide

I'm actually all for it, since it draws a thick dividing line between a message app like Signal and insecure apps like WhatsApp and Telegram.

When people hear "messaging" there is some expectation of privacy. When you hear "social media" it's implied all of that is public.

This guy is complaining about this while living in LA?

Isn't prison slavery already legal in the USA??

elevate the universe to a higher state of complexity

girl my life already too complex, ain't no one need elevation to an even higher state of complexity

can we maybe do a lower one?

Her professional interest would be to shut the fuck up and just live in her castle, forever rich beyond measure. She could never write another thing in her life and she'd never run out of money anyway.

To construct the Badthink Wrongtribe Brush you must first venture to find the ancient Badthink Handle (hewn from ancient oak), and then defeat a herd of viscious Sealions for the Wrongtribe Hairs.

When the stars are right the Brush can be forged anew, in the Forge of Usenet.

type systems are censorship

You jest but trying to convince C people to just use Rust please god fuck stop hurting yourself and us all kinda feels like this

We’d be better off not trying to censor it

Those mfs would refuse to change their code when it fails a test because it restricts their freedom of expression and censors their outputs to conform to the mainstream notion of "correct"

I was thinking about this after reading the P(Dumb) post.

All normal ML applications have a notion of evalutaion, e.g. the 2x2 table of {false,true}x{positive,negative}, or for clustering algorithms some metric of "goodness of fit". If you have that you can make an experiment that has quantifiable results, and then you can do actual science.

I don't even know what the equivalent for LLMs is. I don't really have time to spare to dig through the papers, but like, how do they do this? What's their experimental evaluation? I don't seen an easy way to classify LLM outputs into anything really.

The only way to do science is hypothesis->experiment->analysis. So how the fuck do the LLM people do this?

You're dodging the question. How do you evaluate if it's good at predicting words? How do you evaluate if a change made it better or worse?

How do you measure good/bad at predicting words? What's the metric? Cause it doesn't seem to be "the words make factual sense" if you're defending this.