blakestacey

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 3 months ago

Maintaining my weight still requires fasting 1 month for every 2 months that I eat enough for my brain to work.

... his brain works?

Objection! Facts not in evidence!

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ah, by "chaser", you mean "emetic"

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 9 points 3 months ago

2 Giant 2 Rat Penis

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Good grief, I know. It was bad enough when SBF hit the headlines, but now, it feels like the next news cycle will involve explaining how Thielbux funded a performance art piece in Dimes Square about Nikolai Fyodorov's Cosmism.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 13 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Spending an unknown but potentially long amount of time to maybe get a solution of potentially minimal legibility is definitely AI's killer app.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 15 points 4 months ago (3 children)

That picture... Harry Potter and the Hole of Ketamine.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 12 points 4 months ago (3 children)

OpenAI said in its announcement that search responses will include in-line citations and that users can open a sidebar to view links to external sources. The long-term goal is to then incorporate search features into ChatGPT, the company’s flagship AI product.

"The long-term goal is to reinvent the Internet of 25 years ago, but worse."

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 10 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Regarding that claimed breakthrough about AI winning the International Mathematical Olympiad: a reminder that a proof which hangs together logically is not necessarily a proof that makes sense.

Those formalized proofs are so incredibly ugly, it's amazing. Of course it doesn't much of a sensible indentation, but then there are single proof steps where I have no idea what it's even doing. [...] And then there are nonsense mathematical steps. The solution of problem 2 starts with induction, before introducing any variables. It applies induction to the number 12. And it write 12 as (10)+2. Then it proceeds to do the whole proof in the base case of the induction, and notices that the induction step is trivial, since the goal is the same as the induction hypothesis (but instead of the assumption tactic it uses congr 26).

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 9 points 4 months ago

Incoming ban from site detected.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Saying anything in particular makes you open to fact-based criticism — I mean, it is object-level and bad, instead of meta-level and good.

view more: ‹ prev next ›