I still don't see the benefits. It's a bit like saying that every Februar (in the Gregorian calendar) had 29 days but sometimes it's imaginary and sometimes it's not.

Would you phone calendar show "imaginary days"? Could you schedule meetings on imaginary days? If yes - that would probably be a complete mess, and if not - why even call it "imaginary day" if it's not a day at all.

Seems a bit like a bandaid that tries to make it more symmetric/pretty. We could expand all months to 32 days in the Gregorian calender and just call some of the days imaginary. That way all months would be the exact same length 🤣

I can't speak for Lemmy but I'm personally not against LLMs and also use them on a regular basis. As Pennomi said (and I totally agree with that) LLMs are a tool and we should use that tool for things it's good for. But "thinking" is not one of the things LLMs are good at. And software engineering requires a ton of thinking. Of course there are things (boilerplate, etc.) where no real thinking is required, but non-AI tools like code completion/intellisense, macros, code snippets/templates can help with that and never was I bottle-necked by my typing speed when writing software.

It was always the time I needed to plan the structure of the software, design good and correct abstractions and the overall architecture. Exactly the things LLMs can't do.

Copilot even fails to stick to coding style from the same file, just because it saw a different style more often during training.

It's not about mythology or Mesopotamia. Those numbers are called highly composite numbers (HCN) and superior highly composite numbers (SHCN) and are great for doing calculations (especially divisions) in your head because they have a lot of factors. That's why they were used everywhere before calculators were a thing.

No we don't say that and I was completely confused until I read the english line.

"I think Luigi did it and he should be free."

A perfectly valid opinion, and so are:

• I think Luigi didn't do it and should be free because of that.
• The person who actually did it should be free, because <insert personal reason/opinion why>

If you'd celebrate the real killer, then arguing that Luigi didn't do it seems secondary (...)

That's not really secondary. I you believe that he didn't do it for whatever reason (I'm not really into the technical details of the case and the evidence or lack thereof) why would you argue that he did it but still go free. Wouldn't it be more honest and reflect your believes better to say "Luigi didn't do it and of course should be released and the person who did should also go free because it was justified"

But by that definition passing the Turing test might be the same as super human intelligence. There are things that humans can do, but computers can't. But there is nothing a computer can do but still be slower than humans. That's actually because our biological brains are insanely slow compared to computers. So once a computer is better or as accurate as a human it's almost instantly superhuman at that task because of its speed. So if we have something that's as smart as humans (which is practically implied because it's indistinguishable) we would have super human intelligence, because it's as smart as humans but (numbers made up) can do 10 days of cognitive human work in just 10 minutes.

yes

That's exactly what I did and never looked back. Just installed code-server + a few vs code plugins. Automatically synced via some some scripts that push and pull+merge git commits, done. No need for one of those million note taking apps. I also installed polyglot notebooks for vs code to embed code into notes.

Or C) Actually understand that alignment is a very hard problem we probably won't be able to solve in time.

Thank you for taking the time to read it ❤️. I'm currently out of office I'll try to find and fix the typo you mentioned once I'm back, thanks for pointing it out.

❤️ Thank you for taking the time to read it. And thank you so much for pointing that out, you are completely right and I totally didn't think about that while writing the article, probably because negative exponents are pretty rare in computer science (as in milli-bytes, etc.). I'll fix that in a few days. Thanks again for pointing that out.

❤️ Thank you for taking the time to read it and thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it.