It's basically fantasy except the magic is, to varying degrees, rooted in real science and physics.
That's a superficial view of both Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Sure, there's a lot of schlock out there which essentially functions as this sort of meaningless escapism for the reader. But proper Sci-Fi and Fantasy is philosophical in a way that makes them radically different, if not diametrically opposed.
Fantasy stories typically depict a society in decay, with evil ascendant, and characters who yearn to return to a time of past innocence. It's ultimately backward looking and conservative. When it functions as social commentary, it's a critique of the alienation and impersonality of modernity.
Science Fiction is forward-looking. It asks "what if" questions about the limitations of our modern society by inviting us to view a society that has been freed from those limitations. It challenges our ideas about human nature. It's ultimately progressive, even when it depicts dystopian governments.
maybe the judge will even try to be extra nice when he explains why the argument doesn't hold water.
Many judges take a dim view of expensive lawyers trying to pull the wool over their eyes with sophisticated but fallacious arguments. You have to deal with a lot of BS to be a long-standing judge, so it seems like resistance to BS may be selected for among judges.
Cowen uses Freestyle Chess (teams of humans and computers) as an analogy, noting that human intuition combined with machine processing power consistently outperforms either working alone.
Unfortunately, this one hasn't aged well. Human+Computer is now consistently outperformed by Computer alone in the chess world. Also, the name Freestyle Chess is now used for Chess960, the chess variant where starting positions are randomized. It has nothing to do with computer chess now!
They disabled NPC participation in the real economy. This gave way to the real player economy which took place in player-run shops built inside player-owned and customized housing.
Players didn't buy those 5000 junk skullcaps either. They wanted stuff that was actually valuable, which meant those practice items were recycled or thrown in the trash.
I remember when the UO team added trash barrels and created the "Clean up Brittania" event. The game's servers were struggling to deal with large numbers of these junk objects that people littered on the ground so the devs decided to enlist the players' help cleaning it up, just like a real-life public park cleanup project! Players got rewarded special items based on the amount of junk they cleaned up.
Right. On my server I actually had one of those larger 2-room houses right at the crossroads as a vendor shop, so am familiar with what was there.
But that's what I meant by "sort of", as it wasn't the pure simulation that was originally promised. Another example was that all the early dupe bugs created a real need for serious gold sinks that weren't planned into the original design.
Even WoW had a player economy via the auction house, and that's about as dumbed down as an MMO gets. Though I agree that the evolution of the player run markets, plus the eventual vendor support added by DD & crew were cool.
Did you only set up Time Machine? Or did you continue supporting all those users for years and years. If the issue is that eventually the backup store becomes corrupted then you may not see it at all if you're only setting up backups but never dealing with users who actually need to restore something from backup years later.
I'm convinced that this is the fate of all successful software companies. It's not a result of arrogance or hubris or anything else like that. It's the result of turnover.
Take your favourite rock band and turn over all the musicians until no one is left from the original band. Should we expect the band to continue cranking out chart-topping hits?
There's one further factor that makes the situation even worse than the "Rock Band of Theseus." That's the fact that young software engineers are not interested in stewardship. They want to build their own projects, not fix bugs in someone else's. Across the software industry we see this lead to a continual churn, rewrites and redesigns no one wants, and a huge amount of wasted effort reinventing the wheel (and often making a worse wheel).
There should be leadership at the top focussing the efforts of developers though. Developers wanting to make new stuff doesn't only happen because of turnover.
I have been so irritated by this that I've been considering switching TO the mac ecosystem, BUT this thread is good on my eyes and makes me disinterested now.
It really makes me miss Classic Mac OS 9. I used it from 7.5.1 to 9.2.2. I remember being so excited about Mac OS X when the Public Beta came out that I switched immediately. It really sucked and I went back immediately. But eventually Mac OS X got better and I switched to it, and never looked back.
Now I am looking back and remembering everything I lost. A computer that was so simple and so predictable. It didn't change behind my back all the time. It never shoved upgrades down my throat. It just worked!
"A computer that was so simple and so predictable."
This is what cachyOS + KDE is giving me at the moment. Ok, so it's not totally simple and there are A LOT of updates. But it's by and large predictable. I never had a 1980-90s Mac, but I had an Apple IIe and an Amiga 500. While cachyOS is so much more powerful it doesn't abuse that power like Windows and OSX with so many background processes and telemetry. I have a Mac laptop and I dual boot my PC with Windows + Linux. I don't have hate OSX but CachyOS + KDE is by far my favourite as it's customisable to the extent I want and it just gets out of my way. Highly recommend it if that wasn't obvious!
If you've lived in your house/apartment for a good long while and settled in, you have an idea of what it was like to use Classic Mac OS 9 (and earlier).
It's like flicking a lightswitch or reaching into a drawer and grabbing a spoon without looking. Everything is always right where you left it. Double-click a folder and the window opens in exactly the same state that you left it when it was last closed. All the icons are arranged in the same way, with the same label colours you gave them, and each of the folders inside that folder open the same way as well. One folder might open in list view sorted by Date Modified while another opens in icon view with the exact arrangement you decided on, all according to the way you left them.
All of those folders open their windows in the exact same position, size, and shape they had when you closed them. This lets you quickly drill down through layers of nested folders, moving your mouse to the next one before your eyes can even register it on screen.
The effect of this extreme level of persistence is that you develop muscle memory for the mouse. No other operating system environment I have ever used works like this, or at least this pervasively (modern macOS still has this for the menu bar). Everyone else just gives up and relegates the muscle-memory control to the keyboard only. This is a huge tragedy! A Classic Mac OS power user works with one hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard, and uses muscle memory with both to fly around the UI and work very efficiently. This is especially valuable when you're working in software that needs the mouse anyway, such as art or design software.
There was a lot of research leading up to 1980's-1990's UI design showing that people have a good understanding of physical persistence and the ability to remember where stuff is. This is why you can walk to your favorite restaurant or find your car after parking it.
Most modern UIs actively break spatial locality, so they don't work well for human users.
Imagine a parking lot that continuously shuffles the locations of all the cars, but you have a clicker that can make your car's alarm go off. You can walk towards it, and, although it might move while you're headed towards it, it is generally moving slower than you, so eventually you can find it.
This is kind of how Amazon warehouses work, and has the advantage that it can scale to infinite inventories and load balance access patterns really well (especially for robot pick + placers).
It also famously burns out human workers.
Note that the article spends a long time complaining about spotlight bugs. This is because there's no way to find anything on a modern version of MacOS. Logical directories (like Applications, Downloads, Documents and Desktop) are split into multiple physical unix directories. Photos aren't even stored in a directory at all!
The transition from OS9/Win 3.x to OSX/modern Windows is like moving from the house you grew up in to squatting in a never ending series of shopping malls and being forced to move on every few hours or so.
Having a confidence score isn't as useful as it seems unless you (the user) know a lot about the contents of the training set.
Think of traditional statistics. Suppose I said "80% of those sampled preferred apples to oranges, and my 95% confidence interval is within +/- 2% of that" but then I didn't tell you anything about how I collected the sample. Maybe I was talking to people at an apple pie festival? Who knows! Without more information on the sampling method, it's hard to make any kind of useful claim about a population.
This is why I remain so pessimistic about LLMs as a source of knowledge. Imagine you had a person who was raised from birth in a completely isolated lab environment and taught only how to read books, including the dictionary. They would know how all the words in those books relate to each other but know nothing of how that relates to the world. They could read the line "the killer drew his gun and aimed it at the victim" but what would they really know of it if they'd never seen a gun?
I think your last point raises the following question: how would you change your answer if you know they read all about guns and death and how one causes the other? What if they'd seen pictures of guns? And pictures of victims of guns annotated as such? What if they'd seen videos of people being shot by guns?
I mean I sort of understand what you're trying to say but in fact a great deal of knowledge we get about the world we live in, we get second hand.
There are plenty of people who've never held a gun, or had a gun aimed at them, and.. granted, you could argue they probably wouldn't read that line the same way as people who have, but that doesn't mean that the average Joe who's never been around a gun can't enjoy media that features guns.
Same thing about lots of things. For instance it's not hard for me to think of animals I've never seen with my own eyes. A koala for instance. But I've seen pictures. I assume they exist. I can tell you something about their diet. Does that mean I'm no better than an LLM when it comes to koala knowledge? Probably!
It’s more complicated to think about, but it’s still the same result. Think about the structure of a dictionary: all of the words are defined in terms of other words in the dictionary, but if you’ve never experienced reality as an embodied person then none of those words mean anything to you. They’re as meaningless as some randomly generated graph with a million vertices and a randomly chosen set of edges according to some edge distribution that matches what we might see in an English dictionary.
Bringing pictures into the mix still doesn’t add anything, because the pictures aren’t any more connected to real world experiences. Flooding a bunch of images into the mind of someone who was blind from birth (even if you connect the images to words) isn’t going to make any sense to them, so we shouldn’t expect the LLM to do any better.
Think about the experience of a growing baby, toddler, and child. This person is not having a bunch of training data blasted at them. They’re gradually learning about the world in an interactive, multi-sensory and multi-manipulative manner. The true understanding of words and concepts comes from integrating all of their senses with their own manipulations as well as feedback from their parents.
Children also are not blank slates, as is popularly claimed, but come equipped with built-in brain structures for vision, including facial recognition, voice recognition (the ability to recognize mom’s voice within a day or two of birth), universal grammar, and a program for learning motor coordination through sensory feedback.
Friendly reminder that Google Takeout [1] exists. When I read a story a few years ago about a guy who had his primary Google account banned with no recourse (for reselling Pixel phones) and permanently lost 20 years worth of emails and family photos, I researched and found Takeout and used it to back up all my data, then subsequently stopped using Google services altogether (apart from YouTube).
Unfortunately the service is very buggy in my experience. When I tried to download all of my photos data multiple times it gave me corrupted .zip files and half of the files were just zero bytes. Maybe I can blame Firefox for that though, I dunno. I should probably try again with Chrome before completely blaming Google
I've never had a problem with Google Takeout the multiple times I've used it. Perhaps try making the compressed files smaller (You can choose to make them 1gb or greater, last time I used it), you might need to download 75 files, but it's better than 1 big file.
That's assuming the hydrogen is just loose in the area, like it'd been released from a balloon in a chemistry classroom. That amount of hydrogen is extremely small, from an energy standpoint. Equivalent to a teaspoon of gasoline or so.
If you assume a realistic fuel capacity for a hydrogen vehicle, the hydrogen tank will be both much larger than a gas tank and the hydrogen will be under extreme pressure. A tank like that in your car would be extremely dangerous even if it were filled only with inert gas.
That's a superficial view of both Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Sure, there's a lot of schlock out there which essentially functions as this sort of meaningless escapism for the reader. But proper Sci-Fi and Fantasy is philosophical in a way that makes them radically different, if not diametrically opposed.
Fantasy stories typically depict a society in decay, with evil ascendant, and characters who yearn to return to a time of past innocence. It's ultimately backward looking and conservative. When it functions as social commentary, it's a critique of the alienation and impersonality of modernity.
Science Fiction is forward-looking. It asks "what if" questions about the limitations of our modern society by inviting us to view a society that has been freed from those limitations. It challenges our ideas about human nature. It's ultimately progressive, even when it depicts dystopian governments.
reply