315 karma · joined June 17, 2018
For models that have multiple providers, they automatically route your requests to a different provider if one of them goes down.
That's an interesting thing to include. I agree with this point in principle, but I've found that Claude, at least, duplicates logic FAR too often and needs nudging in the other direction.
My belief on this is not entirely rational, of course, but it seems to me that there's probably a sort of Turing-completeness for intelligence/understanding, where as soon as a mind starts being able to understand abstraction, given enough time and resources, it can probably understand the entire universe.
It would also be presumptuous to say that brainfuck is equally powerful to every other programming language that exists, and yet we know it to be true. The fundamental reason we can prove that Turing-complete languages are equivalent to each other is that we can build the same abstractions in both, so intuitively it feels like a similar principle holds for human intelligence.
The statement "All my hats are green" would map to
things.every(thing => thing.type != 'hat' || thing.color == 'green')
i.e., everything the person owns must either be green or, if it isn't green, it must not be a hat since all hats are green.The negated form would then be
things.some(thing => thing.type == 'hat' && thing.color != 'green')
i.e., there are some hats that are not green.I'm genuinely curious, how else could you hold a pen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_table#Modern_ti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...
@safe works perfectly fine and exactly the same in @nogc code as in GC-enabled code.
Not that it really matters that much, but just for future reference: Lua is a proper noun, not an acronym.