I think that sometimes making drastic UI changes like MS Office did is one of negative incentives of commercial software. They always need something visually noticeable to justify added value of new versions.
I think the project is great, but for me it is connected now to an empiric rule of big complex projects with a large user base: An issue will be fixed more or less quickly if it affects millions/thousands of users, otherwise it will live forever in an eternal priority queue. There's an issue I noticed in LibreOffice, found the corresponding tracker post, confirmed it with a test, and now it is only visited by a robot checking whether stall issues are worth deleting. Another example is Chromium, where I posted an issue about wrong rendering of some elements with rare sets of attributes. The post is more alive than the LibreOffice one, but nevertheless, never fixed since it requires precious developers time but too niche to gain much attention
Good point. LLMs can be treated as "theories" and then they definitely meet falsifiability [1] allowing researchers finding "black swans" for years to come. Theories in this case can be different. But if the theory is of logical or symbolic solver then Wolfram's Mathematica may be struggle with understanding the human language as an input, but when evaluating the results, well, I think Stephen (Wolfram) can sleep soundly, at least for now
Why can't other AI tasks be also in focus? Like having fun with some creativity. I remember that I once created a story with an LLM when we switched sides. I still remember some of the twists and it's interesting that I no longer can attribute them to either of us :)
It's ironic that progress that freed many people from hard agricultural jobs and allowed society to free part of the population from daytime jobs was mostly directed at non-child-bearing categories like children and teens (to learn and study for future jobs) and elderly (to retire earlier than in previous centuries). The age ideal for raising children is also ideal for economics to be a part of it
My first (almost) thought was "Ok, looking at the llama, where's the quality boost?" I think the explanation is probably in how LLM are trained. Even without knowing deeply the internals, I suspect that it's the compression of information so to simplify you can't make 8GB data contain all the facts of a "bigger" normalized relational database. So they keep the facts present everywhere and often drop rare facts. For example, a fact "SQL was invented at IBM", this fact can be found everywhere, in books, web sites, comments. You don't need access to copyrighted books to acquire this fact. But a first-person account of someone who worked at IBM at that time is probably can be found in a couple of books, but due to "compression", it will be gone anyway
The article lacks references, especially about the law that enforced banks to make loans on non-market conditions. Even if the sources are in Russian, it would be better than no sources at all
About 10 years ago working with AST trees I (re)invented a flat structure representing trees in a flat array. It reminds me of what is described here but not exactly. In my case I needed only two indices per node: total sub-region length of all the children and sub-children and parent index (so no need to have indices of all children). Total sub-length basically can be interpreted as the index of the next sibling. With such a structure it's easy/cheap to execute FindFirstChild/FindNextSibling.
Later the theory behind such structures was revealed as "Nested set model" [1]. The article seems to not mention the internal representation, but I think that the implementation should use something like my solution, so fixed number of references per node
This comment inspires a more philosophical observation. I tend to notice that it's an illusion that education exists for the sole purpose of preparing human labor for future jobs. Partially it does, but another part is fixing progress consequences. Imagine you traveled to the past where 99% of workers were agricultural ones and explained that there would be a future when only 10% is required to fulfill needs for food for others. They obviously complain that it would be terrible because so many jobs would be lost and so on. But humanity is great at inventing new occupations. Fast forward from the past to present. We have many schools, universities where there are many paid jobs (tutors, clerks, management) and many unpaid occupations (pupils, students). In our hypothetical past only a tiny fraction of the population could afford to belong to these two categories. And the latter can afford to be unpaid because progress allows their parents to pay for them in order for them to be occupied without a paid job.
This is my speculation through observation, but imho friendship in its pure form is a genetic program. If you're "no longer twenty these days" (semi-quote from Bernie Taupin), you may not remember how it was but just look at any teen company in public transport or elsewhere, it just feels like a single organism. And at that age it doesn't mean whether your views (if there are any) are similar, you're just attracted. Another speculation that this mutation could be tossed several times with different outcomes, like different spans of this attraction. And keeping the strong bonds later in life from the evolution standpoint it wasn't worth it really so the best fit was to narrow it to some period best for survival of both participant (or group)
reply