nicebyte

Sorry, you're the one making ridiculously strong claims like "actual truth doesn't exist". The onus is on you to prove them.

Like I said in a different thread: thousands of years from now, it might literally not be possible to prove that you ever existed, but that wouldn't change the "actual truth" - the fact that you did exist, and do things. Stuff happens outside of your person, in the real world, without regard for our ability to perceive/articulate/"know" it. It's only possible to say things like "actual truth doesn't exist" if you think your mind is the only thing that really exists.

> i'm not interested in educating you on thousands (literally dating back to plato) of years of scholarship/philosophical discourse on the topic of epistemology.

Cool. Then don't start a discussion with me.

I'm talking about a case where the _best explanation_ you have suggests the defendant is guilty, however the _actual truth_ happens to be that they're innocent

I just happened to log into this particular acct on of the laptops I use and never bothered to switch to the account I normally use.

I do not appreciate your condescension.

Either state your argument coherently so as to address my completely valid objection, or move on if you're not interested in having a discussion.

Arguing by sending bare links to wiki articles isn't productive and doesn't make you look particularly good.

I had an account on orkut way back in 2006. It wasn't very active - I had IRL friends and none of them were there, so I had no reason to go there. The first social network that really caught on among us was LiveJournal.

I really do miss "old" forms of social media like forums and live journal, but unfortunately I think the era of people talking to each other on large public platforms is well and truly over. Even if _somehow_ it was possible to get everyone out of the claws of corporate social media, there is no fighting the onslaught of bots. There is simply no way to remake Orkut as a "good" form of social media because the world in which such a thing was possible doesn't exist anymore.

unless you subscribe to an entirely solipsistic worldview, "actual truth" obviously exists regardless of your ability to measure or perceive it.

I think we disagree pretty fundamentally on what something "being true" means.

It's possible to come up with an "unnecessarily complex model" for why someone accused of a crime did the crime, but that has completely no bearing on whether the defendant is actually guilty. If the defendant is, in fact, innocent, then the prosecution's model is, in fact, untrue - no matter how well it fits the evidence.

sorry, saying that "it's a matter of taste" whether the earth revolves around the sun is completely ridiculous. making useful predictions is one thing, but actual truth is not a "matter of taste".

I think you mean dichotomy dude

sounds like bargaining to me.

I am not joking when I say that 4chan is a more rejuvenating and life affirming place than Linkedin

Asinine comment.

OpenAI needs to be held accountable for these incidents. It's not "openAI agents" who perpetrate these, it's OpenAI, the organization. If I personally use an "agent" to break into a company's network and gain access to things I'm not supposed to have access to, I will get the book thrown at me. Yet when openAI does it, they somehow manage to get away with it? And you're defending them? Who's the clown in this situation?

under what conditions would the infinite loop be scheduled over something else after it has run out of its time slice?

arguably there are already several places in the language where things like this can happen. for example, initializing a static function variable has certain thread safety guarantees (two threads entering the function won't step on each other), and while it's nice to not worry about it, this can certainly be a problem if you're trying to stay close to the metal and not pull in any dependencies.

> I don't see a good reason for the transformation: pretty much any time you are writing a bare infinite loop like this you don't want anything else to happen (it's also silly that it only happens with a particular spelling of an infinite loop, keeping the others still undefined).

I'm not disagreeing with you, but two things worth considering are 1) you don't always write loops like that _intentionally_; 2) if a bug like that slips into production system, it would be good to make sure it doesn't starve other threads.

> How To Write With An LLM

Simply don't.

"need to"? why?

> However, math problems are really there to solve a real world problem.

this is ABSOLUTELY not how actual mathematicians see their field. A problem in mathematics is just that: its interest to a pure mathematician is not related to any applications in other disciplines.

I don't really understand what makes a mathematical problem "interesting" because of my bias as an engineer. Nothing is interesting to me unless I can use it to solve a "real world problem". But, I'm willing to concede that "solving real world problems" is really not how mathematics advances.

Things like complex numbers or quaternions were often thought about way outside of the context of their modern applications in physics and engineering. When Hamilton thought about quaternions I really doubt he cared that it would make some programmer's life easier 200 years later:

> Every morning in the early part of October 1843, on my coming down to breakfast,

> your brother William Edwin and yourself used to ask me:

> "Well, Papa, can you multiply triples?"

> Whereto I was always obliged to reply, with a sad shake of the head,

> "No, I can only add and subtract them." [1]

If we go back further, Pythagoreans weren't trying to solve "real problems" either, they were like a weird religious cult.

My point is, the practice of "real" mathematics is really something that odd people feel driven to do, not unlike painting or playing an instrument. All the applied stuff is just a byproduct (not unlike ad billboards or elevator music).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quaternions

what this article tells me is that no one at Nvidia actually cares about this project whatsoever. otherwise, they would have had a person actually write the announcement.

I'm sorry, this is simply not true.

this https://codeberg.org/lrvick/nit/src/branch/main/src/system/r...

is textbook definition of boilerplate. you need to be patient to cross-reference syscall tables but certainly not smart.

Again, students learning about operating systems do similar things as a normal part of their education process.

I'm not saying LLMs wouldn't help with this (in fact, this is the type of thing that becomes pretty much a no-op with them) but the notion that this is "impossible by any realistic standards" is risible, and if you have actually contributed to the kernel like you say, you should know better.

> It would be too annoying for a human to ever write code to standards this high,

These are standards of a normal university operating systems course (assuming a university worth its salt anyway). Ridiculous to present it as some kind of feat that was "impossible" or even that rare.

I don't know what's worse, people dying of a disease because there is no cure, or people dying of a disease because they can't afford a cure?

not having a vaccine for a deadly disease, or having a vaccine AND a monstrous media machine that will convince millions to not take it?

Sure yeah. propaganda has to be subtle sometimes.

reader mode helps.

are you implying that text is impure bits?

2015 called

No, that is exactly the reason I am bringing up physics. There used to be a time when a singular person could make an outsized impact. In the recent past though, this has not been the case: significant breakthroughs are usually the result of coordinated effort of many individuals. Is that really a valid reason to not do physics?

now, if you said "don't get into it because your primary employment prospects would be games or film industry, which are known to be less than stellar towards their workers" - that would be a different story.

My only additions to the article would be to study your probability/statistics (can't do efficient path tracing without it) and get comfortable with integrals, especially integrals on a sphere (physically based rendering will be a lot easier to understand).

Ridiculous justification.

"Where is todays Jon Carmack?"

Where is the "John Carmack" of ML? Where is the John Carmack of physics? This hero worship crap needs to be left in the past. There isn't a singular active researcher you can point to and say "this person has made the field what it is today". There are very influential papers, but they all have multiple contributors. Is that really a valid reason to not engage in a particular area of research or engineering?

And who cares anyway? No matter what you choose to do with your time, chances are that you will not have that much of an impact on your chosen discipline. You should choose how to spend your time based on whether an activity genuinely interests you, not on whether you think it would be easy to get recognition.

"Github Repo" "Find Us on GitHub"

????