>The subtle art of deception was historically considered a feminine trait, as opposed to the brute nature of masculinity.
Was it? Aside from Odysseus, there's Loki, Dolos, and all mythologies have similar figures of the (male) trickster. One of Hermes pet names "Dolios" (literally: cunning or trickster) too.
>(You could of course argue that they did not give enough context ... but that's exactly my point: the trick makes the proof work but hides the explanation)
Can't one see it in another way: that the trick illuminates a deeper explanation, connection the theorem's context and the stuff that's conceptually outside of that context. And that the problem is we don't know why the two domains (the context and the conceptually outside of it one) are related and cooperating in this way.
>I think this whole heat wave crisis has been shocking to the rest of the world to see that apparently Europeans refuse to install AC even in new-build homes and it is causing enormous numbers of deaths. What is the reason for this?
Because the Northern Europe didn't historically need it (average summer warm weather was like 75 degrees or less), so it was mostly seen as environmentally unfriendly and more of a stupid US indulgence, like being able-bodied but still going to the supermarket on a motorized wheelchair.
The South that did need it, has already had it for the most part.
>1.) China is not communist, even remotely so. China is fascist in every sense of the word.
Except in the actual historical sense. They appear to enjoy all sorts of freedoms, increased prosperity, even have elections at different levels but under a single party system. Which is not necessarily that different than a effectively two party system.
>2.) Authoritarianism can move faster than anything. They can just say "wipe out that village, build the coal plant there, data center here, fab here.
Now that China is more effective, "it's easy because they're authoritarian". Before the argument was "authoritarianism can never be as effective as free-market democracy".
>3.) If it's red tape and regulation holding the US back, then that's clearly not "capitalism."
It's real world capitalism, not some fantasy some guy imagined removing all warts.
Chinese fabs might not be so tied with red tape and regulation upon regulation (which is a funny reversal, in terms of "communism vs capitalism" bureucracy/inefficiency cold war thinking)
>Oh give me a break. Show me one example of 1) any knob twisting that makes the underlying model better.
I mentioned several.
You're now once again changing goalpoasts to say you meant the underlying model, not the overall llm performance, even though you explicitly wrote: "Their performance depends solely on the model training before release and how well you curate the context you feed it".
So, the context curation was relevant (meaning you didn't constrain your claim to the underlying model), but now somehow all the additional tunables aren't relevant (because suddenly you're just talking about the model).
You used the word "smart" now, whereas on the comment I replied to, you said "better".
Tuning those can definitely make a model respond better or worse.
So your claim (quoting 100% as written) that "Their performance depends solely on the model training before release and how well you curate the context you feed it" is wrong. Hence the downvotes.
Doesn't matter if LLMs are to be considered intelligent or not for the claim to be wrong.
> But judging from the downvotes, it seems AI folks get upset when someone talks honestly about their precious piles of matrix multiplication.
Often yes. In this case, it's more like they get upset when someone says something factually wrong, and then defensively changes the goalposts.
>The models don't get better, except when a new one is released. Their performance depends solely on the model training before release and how well you curate the context you feed it. That's it.
Not quite. The hosting side can change reasoning budgets (or re-assign what terms like "high" means), temperature and other decoding parameters, output length limits, finetune internal "hidden" prompt, latency optimizations, finetune attention algorithms, even change quantization - all still serving as the same model.
We know (or suspect) Anthropic frequently nerfs models while keeping their name and version the same.
If it's indeed the case, it adds more value than 100 comments explaining non-happening course corrections, and revolts, and backlashes they believe we'll see.
It's useful to add some cynicism in the mix (or in this case, pragmatism)
Was it? Aside from Odysseus, there's Loki, Dolos, and all mythologies have similar figures of the (male) trickster. One of Hermes pet names "Dolios" (literally: cunning or trickster) too.