Did you mean to respond to a different comment? I have no idea what happened in the VP debate.
The very first response I gave said you just have to reframe state.
And I said "am augmented state space would make it Markovian". Is that not what you meant by reframing the state? If not, then apologies for the misunderstanding. I do my best, but I understand that falls short sometimes.
Reinforcement learning research has been using Atari games as standard benchmarks for over a decade now and no one has faced legal issues yet.
I'm not familiar with the term "beam" in the context of LLMs, so that's not factored into my argument in any way. LLMs generate text based on the history of tokens generated thus far, not just the last token. That is by definition non-Markovian. You can argue that an augmented state space would make it Markovian, but you can say that about any stochastic process. Once you start doing that, both become mathematically equivalent. Thinking about this a bit more, I don't think it really makes sense to talk about a process being Markovian or not without a wider context, so I'll let this one go.
nitpick that makes communication worse
How many readers do you think know what "Markov" means? How many would know what "stochastic" or "random" means? I'm willing to bet that the former is a strict subset of the latter.
It's in reference to your complaint about the imprecision of "stochastic process". I'm not disagreeing that molecular diffusion is a stochastic process. I'm saying that if you want to use "Markov process" to describe a non-Markovian stochastic process, then you no longer have the precision you're looking for and now molecular diffusion also falls under your new definition of Markov process.
That's basically like saying that typical smartphones are square because it's close enough to rectangle and rectangle is too vague of a term. The point of more specific terms is to narrow down the set of possibilities. If you use "square" to mean the set of rectangles, then you lose the ability to do that and now both words are equally vague.
Everyone's weird in their own ways. It's just that one of them is trying to convince people that weird is bad while simultaneously trying to court their votes.
Stochastic process
Or maybe had to simultaneously work multiple full time jobs and a weekend job to make ends meet?
Why settle for good enough when you have a term that is both actually correct and more widely understood?
Why does everyone keep calling them Markov chains? They're missing all the required properties, including the eponymous Markovian property. Wouldn't it be more correct to call them stochastic processes?
Edit: Correction, turns out the only difference between a stochastic process and a Markov process is the Markovian property. It's literally defined as "stochastic process but Markovian".
I find it amusing that everyone is answering the question with the assumption that the premise of OP's question is correct. You're all hallucinating the same way that an LLM would.
LLMs are rarely trained on a single source of data exclusively. All the big ones you find will have been trained on a huge dataset including Reddit, research papers, books, letters, government documents, Wikipedia, GitHub, and much more.
Example datasets:
What's your definition of power then?
I would argue that there is a bidirectional casual relationship. Having more money gives you more power because you can directly spend that money to do things. More power means you can better influence people to give you their money.
Do you know if there's anything for people who have no interest in merch or concerts? I'm thinking it would be pretty cool if someone set up a system where you pay a recurring amount and it gets split between artists based on what you listen to in your local library.
We're not at a point yet where this is a concern, so still on the brainstorming phase of how to do this.
I think the main concern I have is the addictive side of the internet that's enabled by their recommendation systems and infinite scrolling, so that's what I would try to block. For example, allow free reign on YouTube, but you have to specifically search for what you want to see.
There's also the question of privacy, and whether we should be keeping track of and checking their browsing histories. I'm currently leaning towards yes, while also making sure that they're aware of what we're doing. There's value in letting them make their own mistakes and learning from them, but that only applies to things that they can learn and easily recover from.
Immediately afterwards? I've been told to wait at least half an hour after eating, or else brushing will have a negative effect on your teeth.
Focus on Dilution, Not Restriction
This is probably the key takeaway for most people. If you want to decrease your Calorie intake, then eat food that is more satiating per Calorie. A bunch of those named diets are based on this idea (e.g. Keto / low-carb, Paleo, Mediterranean)
That said, everyone's mind and bodies are different. You'll have to experiment and figure out what works for you. Some people do respond well to things like time-restriction based diets, or straight up Calories counting.
We have one for my city centered around socializing and meeting people. We haven't been getting any of the kinds of problems that everyone else here have faced.
I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, there are clear problems with the electoral college situation right now, but on the other hand, getting rid of it means that the tyranny of the majority will become a bigger problem. It's unclear to me which is worse or how we can fix the latter.
OpenAI just put out a blog post about a new model trained via RL (I'm assuming this isn't the usual RLHF) to perform chain of thought reasoning before giving the user its answer. As usual, there's very little detail about how this is accomplished so it's hard for me to get excited about it, but the rest of you might find this interesting.
Following up on another question about open source funding, how does it usually work when there is funding to pay for the dev's work, then someone new joins in and makes significant contributions? Does the original dev still keep everything? Do you split the funds between the devs? If so, how do you decide how much each person gets? Are there examples of projects where something like this has happened?
This community has been around for a few months now. How do we feel about it? Are things working out? Any plans for further growing the community?
This is one of the topics I’ve been thinking a lot about quite a bit for the past few years (i.e. how to set up a community that values discussions with diverse viewpoints), so I thought I’d share some of my thoughts in relation to what I’m seeing here.
-
I think such a community necessarily needs to be a full self-contained instance, or else you’ll get very little activity. Think about how these discussions usually start. Someone posts an article/meme/question/etc, a few people show up and comment with similar thoughts about it worded in slightly different ways, then another shows up and goes against the grain, everyone dogpiles on them, and that’s when the real discussion starts. Very rarely do people go out of their way to ask “what do you think of X controversial topic?” And even if you do, that only leads to a very high level discussion that very quickly gets stale. If you get discussion in the context of specific events, then these discussions can be grounded in reality and lead to more unique context-dependent takes each time it comes up.
-
Regarding upvotes/downvotes: as stated in the rules, they should be used to measure whether a post/comment is a positive contribution to the discussion rather than the number of people who agree with your viewpoint. I don’t believe there’s a way to actually enforce this with the voting system we currently have, but I also think a relatively simple change can fix it. It will require a bit of coding.
My proposal is a voting system with two votes: one to say that you agree/disagree, and another to say good/bad contribution. With this system, you can easily see if someone only thinks posts they agree with are good contributions, and you can use that information to calculate a total score that weighs their votes accordingly. It’s also small enough of a change that I think most people won’t have a problem figuring it out.
Thoughts?
Also, thank you Ace for taking the initiative in creating this place. It makes me happy to see that others want to see this change too.
There's many posts here with the purpose of convincing people to support electoral reform. Not so much that's actually actionable. What do we do if we want to change things? For a start, does anyone have information on who's responsible for the election system at each level of government in each of the major cities?
I think it's generally agreed upon that large files that change often do not belong while small files that never change are fine. But there's still a lot of middle ground where the answer is not so clear to me.
So what's your stance on this? Where do you draw the line?
This list is a little old, so some of the links may not work anymore, but overall it’s still a pretty solid compendium for any budget concious Linux (or Windows) gamer! -------- Know of a game that should be added to the list? Leave a comment below! ^_^ Also check out: * The LibreGameWiki [https://l...
I suspect this is a problem with posts that have extremely long bodies like this one: https://slrpnk.net/comment/8035803
I'm trying to scroll down to the top first comment and inevitably overshoot. When I i try to scroll back up, it suddenly jumps back to the middle of the OP's body.
I was looking up when babies can safely start eating untoasted bread and one of the images led me to this website that sells... stuff? Are they selling me the question? Who knows.
Then if you scroll down to the related products, you can buy a basketball club for $30, down from $15!
I'm guessing this is some phishing website looking to steal credit cards. I also still haven't found an answer to my original question.
Introducing SIMA, a Scalable Instructable Multiworld Agent
Is it possible for posts to show the domain (TLD and SLD) of link posts?
Use case: I don't want to watch videos so I want to avoid clicking YouTube links. I would like to know that they are YouTube videos without having my phone spend the next minute trying to open YouTube.
By metadata, I'm talking about things like text descriptions of a photo/video and where they come from, or an explanation of what a certain binary blob contains, its format, how to use it, etc.
The best solution I have right now is xattrs, but those are dependent on the file system, and there's no guarantee that they will stay when the files get moved, especially if the person moving them is unaware of its existence. The alternative is to keep a plaintext file with this metadata alongside every photo/video/binary/etc, but that would be a huge pain to keep in sync since both files have to be moved together.
So my question to you: do you keep this kind of metadata? If so, how do you manage them?
With the rapid advances we're currently seeing in generative AI, we're also seeing a lot of concern for large scale misinformation. Any individual with sufficient technical knowledge can now spam a forum with lots of organic looking voices and generate photos to back them up. Has anyone given some thought on how we can combat this? If so, how do you think the solution should/could look? How do you personally decide whether you're looking at a trustworthy source of information? Do you think your approach works, or are there still problems with it?
Is there a community meant for anything that doesn't currently fit into the existing communities?