I think the current buzz in the VR space is the "Bigscreen Beyond" which eschews all of the nice-to-haves in order to make the headset as light as possible, and the result is surprisingly compelling.
2,850 karma · joined May 25, 2012
https://core.tcl-lang.org/tcllib/doc/trunk/embedded/md/tclli...
The status quo is that you have employees ingest and internalize this material over years of employment, then have those experienced employees manage large projects by telling the project if they're in compliance with the organization's standards.
A reliable recall system like this isn't just a drop in replacement for new employees, its a drop in replacement for a lot of what makes the expensive employees important: the backwards-and-forwards knowledge of the standards/practices.
Obviously you could find a list of every ticker symbol and create a few thousand symbols before parsing, but you don't always have the luxury of a complete/up-to-date list, or doing so might create too many symbol objects and cause performance problems.
Just as one simple example:
Suppose you have defined some expressions that describe how to read/write data from a database, and you have used them to define a workflow-expression that retrieves a bunch of data, does some math on it, and displays the result.
In Mathematica, you can plug that whole workflow-expression into the "Simplify" function and it will potentially eliminate entire database calls if it realizes you've got stuff like "GetData[y]*(GetData[x]-GetData[x])" in your result that will always evaluate to 0.
You can even do things like define a high "complexity" of your GetData functions to make the Simplify function look for an algebraic form that will minimize calls to the database, even if it has to make the algebra look uglier.
There is a vision of a future where non-CS engineers could function with an interface that’s basically a Jupiter notebook with “import simulator” at the top, but managers are loathe to make that level of scripting competence a requirement for an already fairly specialized role.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/an-easy-sounding-problem-yiel...
And indeed, the AI response indicated that the boundary between convergence and divergence is not well defined, has many local maxima and minima, and could be quote: "fractal or chaotic, with small changes in hyperparameters leading to drastically different outcomes."
- Slimy Palm
- Momfia
- Sand-T-Rump
- Stinkadult
- Cheesus vs Jesus
- Surfing Blues Brothers
- Gnomeo and Juliet
- Game of Thrones = Pornstar + Sword Fight
- Putin = Stool (with poop emoji) + Russia
Or in other words, are UX designers catering to an audience that ought to not exist in the first place.
You might say that the toolmaker's job is to make a foolproof tool that does its job completely independently of the user's skill. But my third line denies this possibility in the context of language models.
To notice that people can't use a natural language interface because they're bad at organizing and expressing their thoughts, then claim this is a failing of the interface is for the poor craftsmen to blame their tools.
To say that we should make language models that are somehow agnostic to a user's command of language is so obviously a fools errand its hard to know where to begin. The author is implicitly calling for mind-reading models.
My experience (as an engineer) is that engineers get paid to manipulate the world around them in precise, predictable ways. As such, they tend to cultivate a core set of relatively simple principles (e.g. heat and material balances) which they take seriously by using to plan/design/etc their manipulations of the world. The engineer's creativity lies in finding new ways to combine the known-reliable principles, and stake their reputation on the result.
Scientists, on the other hand, are expected to come up with new principles. If they take too many ideas seriously, there is no room left for creative new explanations.
Medicine lies somewhere in between, insofar as doctors are trying to manipulate patient's health with the best principles they can find, but they also have to wear a scientists hat via diagnosis, i.e. figuring out which principles to apply to a patient.
And so the reaction to e.g. fundamentalism makes sense:
An engineer likes having a fundamental set of universal principles, and is comfortable using them to make plans for manipulating the world. They expect the religious world to work the same way as they do, and take those principles seriously.
A scientist wants to know "well I've got a new idea for a fundamental principle, how can we find out if I'm right?" And the fundamentalist has no answer.
A doctor will want to know how certain the fundamentalist is, and how they know those principles even apply to current situation, and the fundamentalist will have no answer.
This isn't my experience. I know a bunch of old folks doing woodcarving, quilting, etc. Its just not the kind of arts you've got in mind.
The point was joyful self-expression. You can go make your own painting with no happy little trees if you want.
Because Palestine has no bargaining chips, a peace deal will involve Israel making unilateral concessions to Palestine, i.e. charity. Israel will relinquish territory where it currently is the de-facto owner, and agree to put new limits on its treatment of the Palestinians. Palestine will continue to receive a great deal of international aid which it could use to rebuild quite quickly if at peace, and they could easily choose to rebuild into a more credible threat to Israel.
In exchange, Israel gets:
Maybe improved relations with their Arab neighbors. (It could also make things worse; their neighbors may become more openly hostile if their "arm the Palestinians against Israel" strategy is taken off the table)
Slightly improved international relations because the settlements Israel keeps would be legitimized.
Maybe a reduction in terrorism (assuming the Palestinian peace-making faction retains enough power to enforce this).
Maybe a reduction in defense costs (Israel still needs to maintain a large defense force because it is surrounded by potentially hostile countries).
Is that trade worth it for Israel? Its not obvious, and depends on how likely you think the positive outcomes are. This is reflected in their domestic politics, Israelis have supported both doves and hawks over the past 60 years depending on how likely they think a positive peace is, which largely depended on Palestinian behavior.
So while I don't think its worth assassinating people over, I do think reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the appropriateness of peace deals from the Israeli perspective.
I'm not saying Israel is blameless. But you must recall Bibi was literally elected because Palestinians began a wave of suicide bombings right before the Israeli elections, which swayed their electorate towards a hard-liner. I.e. the violent Palestinian groups could not be controlled by the peaceful-er ones, and their terrorism ended up being counter-productive.
> Who wouldn't? You make it sound like this is unreasonable.
I am making no value judgements about their goals. I am asserting that their method for achieving those goals is not rational insofar as it is counterproductive.
> pretty sure they'd hate an occupying force with all their might
Being really emotional doesn't make your decisions rational. I'm not telling Palestinians to love their enemies. I'm telling them to pick their battles and not take losing fights.
The peace was immediately undermined by groups who did not want to stop fighting. Look, the wikipedia article on the 1996 palestinian general election following the accords literally says, quote:
The Islamist Hamas, Fatah's main rival, refused to participate in the election; they felt that doing so would lend legitimacy to the PNA, which was created out of *what they called unacceptable negotiations and compromises with Israel.* [0]
This is well documented history, see above for one such example. I know there are people out there who think we actually have an obligation to alter historical facts to avoid coming to uncomfortable conclusions, but I am not interested in debating that view here, if an honest accounting of the facts makes me racist in your eyes, so be it.
> You make it sound like Palestinians want war in perpetuity. Such a hateful rhetoric.
Of course not, they want their stuff back. I'm pointing out that they have consistently chosen a way of going about it that is actually preventing them from getting what they want.
Again, this is based purely on the actual history of the past 60 years where every Palestinian government has reverted to allowing anti-Israel violence because the public will not allow criticism of the fight to get their stuff back. As an example, the PA of today had to walk back its criticism of Hamas' Oct 7 attack after public backlash [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Palestinian_general_elect...
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/abbas-appears-t...
You can't be a successful politician in Palestine with a position of "lets make concessions to Israel so we can stop suffering." The only successful politicians for the past 60-odd years have been the ones promising to fight Israel and get the Palestinians their stuff back.
The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back.
That means every successful Palestinian politician is elected with a mandate to "get our stuff back" but without the means to do it. So they have two options: either make concessions to get some stuff back, or try to fight.
If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!"
If they try to fight a conventional war they lose in a matter of weeks (evidently.) So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job, but not so much that Israel wipes them out. Hence, the 60-year history of terrorism and targeting civilians.
In conclusion:
Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel. They are not doing that because the Palestinian people will not support any leaders that pursue that strategy; they believe violence is a viable means of getting their stuff back even though that has been factually incorrect for the past 60 years. It is possible that the geopolitical landscape may change in the future, and violence becomes a viable option, but wasting resources on fruitless wars does not help change it.
Therefore it is not true that both sides have very good reasons to do what they do.
They studied people with treatable congenital blindness (dense congenital bilateral cataracts)
I suspect the model is bad at these kinds of "reasoning" tasks in the same way that a newly-sighted person is bad at recognizing squares by sight.