421–430 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never underestimate laziness, or willingness to take something 80% as good for 1% of the work. So most are not curious. So what do you do for them?
that's on them? Why do I have to take responsibility for someone else's growth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's on them? Why do I have to take responsibility for someone else's growth?
Because we, as a society, need to create a future of mutual benefit. If you don’t, only terrible things happen, including to you.
But the lazy, uncurious person that wants to shortcut everything, that you described? They're not even trying to help themselves. Maybe the best thing to do there is to let a little time pass and for them to see the result of their actions. You can lead a horse to water..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we, as a society, need to create a future of mutual benefit. If you don’t, only terrible things happen, including to you.
Maybe my comment was a little harsh. I do believe we should have the structure in place for people to learn from as they wish. We should show them it's available, and the benefits of it But the lazy, uncurious person that wants to shortcut everything, that you described? They're not even trying to help themselves. Maybe the best thing to do there is to let a little time pass and for them to see the result of their ac…
This is most kids, myself included. I’m curious and have done well, but if I could have had essays written for me as a kid for sure I’d have tried. And I’d be off worse for it.
Kids also just want to eat sugar and play video games. As parents and a society, we both provide and force alternatives because as adults we know better.
You can lead a horse to water, sure, but you could also lead it to something filled with their worst instincts. Let’s avoid the later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would be a mistake to take the banality of current LLM outputs and extrapolate that into the future. Imagine a chef, congenitally unable to taste or smell food, who has nevertheless studied a million recipes. Can they reproduce existing recipes? Sure, if they follow the instructions perfectly. Can they improvise original recipes? I doubt it. Judging by the instructions alone, the recipes they invent may be indis…
Head over to groq.com, use the qwen-qwq-32b model, and take these examples [1] and put them at the start before the prompt. After that use the following command: write chapter 1 for a new Novel in Progress, take inspiration from the example Novel but DO NOT Repeat Example. Add vivid imagery, in a dark comedy style. dial up the humor and irony and use first person narration. Fracture sentences and emphasize the unusua…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's not true. Quick, what's 51 plus 92? Now: Did you think back to a time someone else added these numbers together, or are you doing it yourself, right now, in your head? I'm sure it's not the first time these numbers have ever been summed, but that doesn't matter. You're doing it now, independently. Just because something isn't unique, doesn't make it derivative. We rediscover things every day.
Pointing out that we can mechanically apply an algorithm on novel inputs is possibly the worst defence of human creativity I can think of in this context.
I'm directly replying to the notion that something is derivative if it is "based on something we've experienced or seen." The fact that rote math calculations are generally less original than creative expressions makes my argument stronger, not weaker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pointing out that we can mechanically apply an algorithm on novel inputs is possibly the worst defence of human creativity I can think of in this context.
Good thing I'm not nebulously defending creativity, then. I'm directly replying to the notion that something is derivative if it is "based on something we've experienced or seen." The fact that rote math calculations are generally less original than creative expressions makes my argument stronger, not weaker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everything we create or do is based on something we've experienced or seen. I would add a couple of things to that. First, humans (like other animals) have instincts and feelings; even newborns can exhibit varying personality traits as well as fears and desires. It's certainly useful to fear things like spiders, snakes, or abandonment without prior experience. Second, an important part of experience is inner life -…
What really fascinates me is gender based toy preferences at (I do not participate in culture wars, this fact just straight up fascinates me as a non-masculine gay guy.)
"No sir! I did not see you playing with your dolls again."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be curious how we know they aren't exposed - 1 year is a long time to see TV shows, TV commercials, toys with pictures of target audience, picture books, etc...
Cars were invented in the early 1900s and the vast majority of human existence was in a world without cars. There cannot be an innate preference for cars, which were a very recent invention.
I think we are going to be seeing a vast partitioning in society in the next months and years. The process of forming expressions just is the process of conceptual and rational articulation (as per Brandom). Those who misunderstand this -- believing that concepts are ready made, then encoded and decoded from permutations of tokens, or, worse, who have no room to think of reasoning or conceptualization at all -- they…
What’s the point of my post you ask ? I like stories - Homer Simpson
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars were invented in the early 1900s and the vast majority of human existence was in a world without cars. There cannot be an innate preference for cars, which were a very recent invention.
Toy cars (tiny wheeled carts) date back at least 5000 years, but tools/technology date to the dawn of humanity.