The LLM <> Human Brain argument is so frequently used but makes no sense.
You can disagree, but legally speaking it will be interesting to see the legal strategy OpenAI takes with the NYT. I'm almost certain that OpenAI won't be using the human brain argument in their defense. Legally, claiming your machine should be treated the same as a human is a losing argument.
LLM can work like human brain, but it doesn’t mean it is like a human person.
First, we know that personhood cannot be reduced to the brain (cf. the gut flora studies and all that).
Second, more generally that claim would require solving what’s known in philosophy as the hard problem. The arguments that consciousness arises from a certain arrangement of entities we perceive in reality (or that it doesn’t exist at all) is specious: it implies that those other things exist in absolute sense, i.e. are the underlying territory, even though the only evidence for their existence is coming via consciousness. That’s a lot of entities to grant magical existence to out of nothing. Once you assume that those things are more likely to be a map, the question turns into what is the territory then, and the spotlights shift to consciousness (a.k.a. the only thing we can be absolutely sure to exist, as it is required for the “we” part to exist in the first place).
And yes, of course, if OpenAI uses the “sentient LLM” defense, all the power to them, but the next logical step would be to consider that industry based on forced labour.
That'd be great if it were migrating those utilities to modern C using improved modern coding practices but re-writing in some goofy language like rust is dumb.
> Where I’m working, WSL doesn’t work (well), VMs are banned, and personal experience with cygwin is awful
I'm no Windows fan but WSL has worked extremely well on several different machines I've worked on since 2015 and Cygwin was no WSL but I could get a lot done with it back in the day as well.
> Docker works but it makes test runs 100x slower (yes, I measured, it’s not made up).
Yeah, I don't know what you're doing that it could be 100 times slower, something else is wrong.
WSL conflicts with many antivirus/security packages due to e.g DNS filtering or other network restrictions. WSL itself on a non-managed box works not-too-bad, sure.
Cygwin has been very useful to me, but also caused its share of issues with its permissions model, creating large directory trees that couldn’t be deleted.
It seems like operators extend kube into the application administration editing arena:
kubectl get SampleDB # find configured databases
kubectl edit SampleDB/example-database # manually change some settings
That's on top of the application editing that's done to create the application in the first place.
Isn't kube supposed to automate the deployment and up time of applications? It seems to me like an anti-pattern to ever have to use "kubectl edit <blah>".
If I had to guess, from my time working with ASR (Advanced Speech Recognition) languages and its difficulty with the Indian (country of) accent; I'd guess Indian languages.
It takes processes to deliver content. It takes content to have a reason to have something to deliver. One employee type isn't better than the other. Jobs was arrogant and the sole reason why I've never bought an Apple product.
I prefer the first version, I didn't find the second version to be more "scannable" and it seems to me to be more esoteric requiring study to realize what was recorded. The first version is clear, each commit makes sense and is what I'd be grepping for when trying to find a commit.
I'm doing it right now, no nightmares, just works, odd.