Y’all reminds me of the bible belt. I’m not transgender but I am queer and now and then it makes me uncomfortable.

Twitter is evil

Mastodon has bad UX

BlueSky is fresh

Then you did not prove that there is no discontiguous mapping which maps [1, 2] to the natural numbers. You must show that no mapping exists, continugous or otherwise.

But then a simple comeback would be, “well perhaps there is a non-continuous mapping.” (There isn’t one, of course.)

“It still works if you don’t” – how does red’s argument work if you don’t? Red is not using cantor’s diagonal proof.

Crack your knuckles, solve your problems your own way, stop comparing yourself to other people, ditch the drugs, and turn your life around. You’re the main character; this has been episode 1, now let’s do episode 2.

This isn’t entirely correct. It’s kind of like saying “SAT score” is a racist pseudoscience – which honestly I can kind of get behind, heh. “IQ” is not a property of a human the way height or eye colour is, it’s just a test score. Yes, it’s used by racist people for racist ends, but racist people use everything for racist ends. The actual science behind IQ has always shown that (a) individual variation in IQ score is vastly, vastly greater than any potential racial factor in IQ, and (b) different research findings on racial averages in IQ score are varied enough that it’s hard to draw much of a conclusion. It’s also well known that IQ tests have a bias in favour of people from western developed nations. To me, it’s most likely that racial averages are similarly biased by the test.

Dowsing is a pseudoscience – it falls apart under scrutiny. But under scrutiny, IQ test scores still correlate with success just like SAT scores do. They are slightly heritable, just like SAT scores are. It sucks, but that’s our capitalist society for you. (Let’s revolt.)

But to the OP, please understand that these correlations are nothing more than correlations, and they are meaningless when you zoom into the individual level. Statistics about groups of people only make broad guesses but are meaningless about individuals. Statistics say the average person has one ovary and one testicle. Statistics say the average American has never heard of lemmy. So, don’t let statistics define you – that would be pseudoscience.

If it helps, remember this: it’s not scientific to say “my IQ is just 76.” You should say “My most recent IQ test score was 76.”

Your explanation is wrong. There is no reason to believe that “c” has no mapping.

Edit: for instance, it could map to 29, or -7.

augh it’s annoying

1, sometimes 2.

Does anyone else have the problem where sometimes a bit of TP sticks to your labia? especially the 1-ply

if you’ve forgotten your log-in info, contact customer service.

If you’ve previously downloaded your data, you can use that to help.

https://gwern.net/improvement

there’s no “but” – this is exactly the point the author is making.

The article is NOT satire – it’s provocative. The author argues that world hunger benefits the rich. Capiche?

I hope the UN restores the article.

Interview with author: https://fee.org/articles/un-deletes-article-titled-the-benefits-of-world-hunger-was-it-real-or-satire/

that’s not satire. He unironically, disapprovingly, argues that this is the real state of the world.

https://fee.org/articles/un-deletes-article-titled-the-benefits-of-world-hunger-was-it-real-or-satire/

What does BLOB stand for?

what’s underage for hrt? like… 12?

The conversation was not originally about OSD; I had just mentioned it.

You do too by using the term FOSS instead of FLOSS

Touchée. But FLOSS the term only emphasises even more: there’s open source software, and then there’s free/libre open source software – note the distinction.

This I can believe tbh. It’s a very useful tool in the hands of an expert. Otherwise it’s like giving a chimp a gun.

Maybe this is why I am surprised at people’s hatred of ChatGPT. It’s borne of misuse of a tool for experts, like newcomers struggling with a C++ compiler error.

like, a video of Tao giving a demonstration?

LLMs are basically just good pattern matchers. But just like how A* search can find a better path than a human can by breaking the problem down into simple steps, so too can an LLM make progress on an unsolved problem if it’s used properly and combined with a formal reasoning engine.

I’m going to be real with you: the big insight behind almost all new mathematical ideas is based on the math that came before. Nothing is truly original the way AI detractors seem to believe.

By “does some reasoning steps,” OpenAI presumably are just invoking the LLM iteratively so that it can review its own output before providing a final answer. It’s not a new idea.