2,869 karma · joined August 4, 2015
But it appears to be valid in PDP-1 Lisp (though not in either Lisp 1.5 or modern Lisps). From https://s3data.computerhistory.org/pdp-1/DEC.pdp_1.1964.1026...
"Doing a CDR of an atom is permissible and will get the atom's property list. Doing a CAR of an atom may very easily wreck the system."
Even if they become more reliable, I like to understand and work things out for myself, rather than just be given the answer.
I assume, though, you mean LLMs. I haven't used them first hand, but I have fairly recently implemented a multi-layer artificial neural network in C, mostly as a learning exercise, but as I had previously built a speech spectrogram in Lisp, I thought I'd try to use it to recognize phonemes, with one hidden layer. The Lisp communicated with the ANN via a Unix pipe. It worked reasonably well for just vowels, but when I added other sounds (e.g. l, r, s, z), its performance deteriorated. I think the C is bug free, but I don't know an easy way to train the ANN. I've tried adding to the training set, adding an extra layer, changing the number of neurons in the hidden layer. The usual debugging skills don't seem to help there.
There are others who just want a problem solved, and it doesn't matter to them how the program which solves it gets written, as long as the program (appears to) work and it's done as quickly as possible, so they outsource the development to AI. That is not hacking.
And here's the clip with aspect ratio corrected: https://www.stretch.site/?videoUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube...
The test here is for the inverse square law of gravity. The rival theory in this case isn't GR, but MOND: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
We agree on Algol, Lisp, Forth, APL, and Prolog. For ground-breaking functional language, I have SASL (St Andrews Static Language), which (just) predates ML, and for object oriented language, I have Smalltalk (which predates Self).
I also include Fortran, COBOL, SNOBOL (string processing), and Prograph (visual dataflow), which were similarly ground-breaking in different ways.
"But we found that Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” tariff rates weren’t based on tariffs that other countries charged on goods coming from the U.S. Instead, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative came up with the rates by dividing the size of a country’s trade imbalance with the U.S. in goods by how much America imports in goods from that nation. "
Source: https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THE...
General relativity was a completely novel idea. Einstein took a purely mathematical object (now known as the Einstein tensor), and realized that since its coveriant derivative was zero, it could be equated (apart fron a constant factor) to a conserved physical object, the energy momentum tensor (except for a constant factor). It didn't just fall out of Riemannian geometry and what was known about physics at the time.
Special relativity was the work of several scientists as well as Einstein, but it was also a completely novel idea - just not the idea of one person working alone.
I don't know why anyone disputes that people can sometimes come up with completely novel ideas out of the blue. This is how science moves forward. It's very easy to look back on a breakthrough and think it looks obvious (because you know the trick that was used), but it's important to remember that the discoverer didn't have the benefit of hindsight that you have.
Dennis McKenna, mentioned in the article, is the brother of the late Terence McKenna.
These are two opposing approaches to AI. Rule induction is somewhere in between - you use training data and it outputs (usually probabilistic) human-readable rules.
capital(germany, berlin).
capital(france, paris).
is clearer.Someone once told me you need humongous vectors to encode nuance, but people are good at things computers are bad at, and vice-versa. I don't want nuance from computers any more than I want instant, precise floating point calculations from people.
I prefer the old school
king(X) :- monarch(X), male(X).
queen(X) :- monarch(X), female(X).
queen(X) :- wife(Y, X), king(Y).
monarch(elizabeth).
female(elizabeth).
wife(philip, elizabeth).
monarch(charles).
male(charles).
wife(charles, camilla).
?- queen(camilla).
true.
?- king(charles).
true.
?- king(philip).
false.
where definitions are human readable rules and words are symbols.I regularly write code which relies on a working X11. I have written a virtual machine which makes X11 calls to do 2D graphics and event handling, as well as applications which compile to the virtual machine code. If X11 and now XWayland cease to be available, not only would I have to rewrite large parts of my virtual machine, but also rewrite all the 2D graphics code in applications. All so that I can stand still when the rug is being pulled from under my feet. I'm sure there are others in a similar predicament.
I may be naive about this, but as X11 just works, and has done for decades, it should require little to no maintenance, so why the need to withdraw it? I don't expect, or require, any additional functionality.