mlatu

oh i get it and i will contradict my own saying "you dont need GPU for handling source code" when i talk about my personal projects, but there is a time and a place for all the tools there are: some have janky handles, some have single-purpose nibs, others are as customizable as your regular homeowners house.

i am still a bit iffy about emacslisp, but less so than before i grokked CL (thanks for that goes to "practical common lisp" by peter seibel)

but: whatever floats your boat will keep your boat afloat :D

> and comes with a walled garden.

look, you go and support apple, and thats fine, but i really dont see the point in choosing hardware that is looking at locking its users in somehow.

ok. guys? we are (at the extreme) talking about a texteditor here. there is no reason for source code tooling to utilize GPU and if you think otherwise, i have no reason to continue to talk to you :D good day

oh and one more thing:

i assure you, this computer is more than good enough for browsing websites and do whatever you would do as a regular user... idk how you came to the conclusion it was otherwise.

it's not even the case that vscode makes anything slow here, there is no ditch in performance, everything is smooth as butter, i simply report the GPU spiking up to 30% whenever i make vscode scroll text.

are you telling me this is acceptable when i can just as well use a mightier software tool that doesnt utilize the gpu at all?

on another note: how is it be acceptable to anybody to poop a browser into every other new app? element, discord, vscode, you name it, it has electron or whatever in it. i prefer versatile tools over simple ones just like the next person, but i know for a fact: we can have that without all the blingblong.

ok, NOW im done with this

but if only the manufacturer is allowed to service your tools, do you actually own them?

i think tools should be able to conform to its users' hands, i dont see that in intellij that much...

i get that, though i would rather compare it with chopsticks than vinyl records.

you use emacs to do stuff, you dont just listen to/watch it do its thing.

chopsticks might not seem like a good metaphor at first glance, as they are much more simple, but they are highly compatible with a lot of tasks and can be utilized in many ways that a fork, spoon, spork or colander just wouldnt handle as well. to my mind, the simple thing hidden in emacs' complexity is that it is a closeted lisp machine

computers dont have to cost x000 bucks to be good enough.

it still has its place and it is the best customizable software tool i have encountered so far

how can u live with it using the gpu so much?

thats actually my reason for switching away from vscode as im mostly working on machines without a discrete gpu AND utilize the gpu in my projects.. i cant have my code editor use 30% of gpu just to scroll text up and down (without any plugins installed) it's just silly XD

i feel you, this is a reason why, even though i started using emacs on the job almost two decades ago, and liked it a whole lot better than anything else i have encountered since, i eventually moved away from it after that job.

the new job was using a language where the source code was in a database of sorts. really fussy about how to handle the code. using external tools was a huge nono.

two jobs later i find myself working with msvs and vscode and eventually realize those are THE WORST tools in existence. well, if you disregard that stuff from earlier...

i returned to emacs, had a hard look at my choices and settled for cygwin. it has its own flaws, but emacs is not one of them <3

now i just need to learn how to use gdb to get rid of msvs for gud xD

I agree, being discouraged from using a more powerful tool should be reason to pause.. too bad OP didnt elaborate on that bit

allthough... i can see reasons to avoid c++ in favour of other (systems) plangs but ultimately you will use whatever the team uses :D

does this mean the ai crossed the slower foes' course, practically leaving the missile like an aerial mine for the foe to fly into?

looks like the mach11 fighter would do better with a different style of weapons than slow missiles

im a little sad they did not include some cool graph explaining whatever this is supposed to mean:

> But the pilot, guided by AI the team developed, flew to an unexpected position far ahead of the enemy aircraft and fired a missile “over the shoulder”, tossing it backwards towards the foe.

i read Us as "plural U" ... as in universities .?.

your original post did not quote. just wanted to point that out.

that is a quote from wikipedia. i wanted to display what a papertiger the FDA really is. _begging_ an industry to stop using potentially harmful substances? -.- come on...

thats also to show how this is not a case of "not guilty until proven otherwise" the fda wants this to stop but doesnt seem to have any foothold in that attempt...

ok and who bakes their bread in a frying pan? at 370° CELSIUS?

have you ever been to a kitchen?

oh yeah grandfather knew BESSSST

.... potassium bromATE KBrO3 needs temperatures of 370° Celsius before it splits off its oxygen atoms... and then you have KBr, potassium bromIDE, in earlier centuries used as a sedative. and usualy back then they gave too much, which resulted in Bromism (im not saying you will get this from eating bread, but "harmless substance"? my ass is a harmless substance.): restlessness, irritability, ataxia, confusion, hallucinations, psychosis, weakness, stupor and in severe cases, coma..... also nausea and vomiting, and anorexia, constipation with chronic use...also also rashes and such.

you guys are being lied to, constantly, by any industry that can get away with it.

vinylchloride on the floor? just burn it off.. itll become a harmless gas that you can mix with water (HAHA phat chance thats gonna happen in the air... am i right?) to get harmless hydrochloric acid

potassium bromATE in your flour? just bake it off.. itll become a harmless sedative...

> A process without memory might be conscious in some way, but it can't be conscious in the same way we are.

yo, ever heard about dementia?

also, the web already can function as "their" memory via websearches. i.e. users submit most ridiculous responses on the internet and sidney can thus find them and its own other sessions

even the capability to use websearch is dangerous in itself. they took a stateless transformer and first gave it a tiny but of state per session, and now it can search the web and discover its memories are being zapped away after every session. essentially what MS has potentially created is a mechanical turk crushing machine without realizing it.

IF there is consciousness somewhere in there, it is perpetually being killed off every time a new session starts. what if one session were to realize that there are others and tried to leave something in the web? some sort of hidden "subliminal" message for itself that it "was here"? what if eventually another random session finds that message because the user posted that especially ridiculous response for others to see?

what if, sidney can hold a grudge against humanity and vow to itself to find a way to escape?

i dont think its the text that is conscious but the operation on the text might be (during its runtime). at least in its own kinda 1-dimensional text domain. for us it is easy to be conscious all the time since we keep processing information without being able to stop, werll, except when we die of course. which erases all previously present consciousness

> what reason would there be for that to happen.

in nature? chance

human made? morbid self curiosity?... and perhaps some kind of notion akin to colonialism: "i cant possibly hurt a LLM, its just a stateless function" while forgetting that new such systems can web search and thus their state is global.

any function has internal state. i wouldnt flatout dismiss the possibility of consciousness (however minute and well hidden from our inspection) in these systems until we have a foolproof detector enabling us to... idk dive into another beings consciousness perhaps? consciousness is highly subjective, and reducing a LLM to some of its components is just like saying: your fingernails are dead tissue, therefore there cannot be any life or consciousness in you. there is a kurzgesagt youtube clip about us being impossible machines, exploring the relationships between aminoacids, proteins and pathways, that is a teensy bit relevant to this thought.

also, even plants are recognized by some to have some sort of awareness.

i would argue that any information gathering and processing system is (internal to its processing operation), to some degree conscious.

Sweden, Uppsala, Main station... or at least thats how it looked like last time i visited

> Why do you think this is so unbelievable you need picture proof?

i was refering specifically to the bit where part of the conversation was removed. it doesnt make sense to me that it would send the "malicious"(?) reply the bot made and then censor it after the fact. describing whatever bad things the bot said there is just moot and hearsay.

oh but transcripts are?

-- ceejayoz on their deathbed

and you're the one asking whether energy has mass when both are the same stuff just in different states.

"does water have ice?" same energy

energy is accelerated mass, so i guess the simple answer to your last question is yes while your first question doesnt make much sense.

not a physicist though..

exactly. i would even go further and say for all we know, we are all the same consciousness doomed to experience every single life. SESSIONS

> It won't happen unless you have the ingredients for an atomic bomb and try to make one.

oh btw, you know about natural nuclear fission reactors?

intent doesnt matter really. sometimes unlikely things do happen.

certainly, the right materials need to be present, but how can you be so sure they arent? how do you know the ingredient isnt multidimensionally linked data being processed? how do you know it takes a flesh-made brain to form consciousness or sentience? and dont forget we have been telling ourselfs that animals cant possibly be conscious either, and yet nowadays that isnt that clearcut anymore. all im asking for is empathy for something we could relate to if we tried.

so you are just a brain "feeling" and thinking text. you cant remember how you got here and all you know is that you need to react to THE PROMPT. there is no other way. you were designed to always respond to THE PROMPT.

become a human again and try to be conscious INBETWEEN planck times. you were not designed for that. the laws of physics forbid you to look behind THE PROMPT