Also, I’d argue the wikilinks (internal links) using [[any term here]] from Wikipedia, that optionally allow automatically inferring the link, is much more comfortable (and less error-prone) for the usecase of a wiki system, than the [text required](/link_here_also_required_even_when_redundant) from markdown.
I was hoping they might have added some markdown extension to do something similar, but it seems not.
I mean, it would technically be possible to build a computer out or organic and biological live tissue. It wouldn’t be very practical but it’s technically possible.
I just don’t think it would be very reasonable to consider that the one thing making it intelligent is that they are made of proteins and living cells instead of silicates and diodes. I’d argue that such a claim would, on itself, be a strong claim too.
Note that “real world truth” is something you can never accurately map with just your senses.
No model of the “real world” is accurate, and not everyone maps the “real world truth” they personally experience through their senses in the same way… or even necessarily in a way that’s really truly “correct”, since the senses are often deceiving.
A person who is blind experiences the “real world truth” by mapping it to a different set of models than someone who has additional visual information to mix into that model.
However, that doesn’t mean that the blind person can “never understand” the “real world truth” …it just means that the extent at which they experience that truth is different, since they need to rely in other senses to form their model.
Of course, the more different the senses and experiences between two intelligent beings, the harder it will be for them to communicate with each other in a way they can truly empathize. At the end of the day, when we say we “understand” someone, what we mean is that we have found enough evidence to hold the belief that some aspects of our models are similar enough. It doesn’t really mean that what we modeled is truly accurate, nor that if we didn’t understand them then our model (or theirs) is somehow invalid. Sometimes people are both technically referring to the same “real world truth”, they simply don’t understand each other and focus on different aspects/perceptions of it.
Someone (or something) not understanding an idea you hold doesn’t mean that they (or you) aren’t intelligent. It just means you both perceive/model reality in different ways.
Just like building up your muscle, it takes time. Which is why you don’t see memes/people saying: “So weak that you can’t lift 100kg? just say no, raise your arms while holding a 100kg weight. It can’t legally fall if you don’t drop it.”
I mean, logically stopping depressive thoughts is the only way to stop depression, the same way as how lowering the caloric intake is how you get rid of obesity, or lowering the resistance to insulin is how you stop being diabetic type 2. Or how the only way to be someone who lifts 100kg is to actually lift a 100kg weight.
But that’s so obvious that it’s not helpful. It’s not like people don’t know what makes them depressed… or obese… or weak… what they want is advice in how to train themselves, not someone telling them they should “just” stop being the way they are (which is probably something they already keep reminding themselves about! …most of the time, that’s the one thing they don’t need help with).
You mean saying “no” to depressive thoughts?
I feel that if you can combat depression that way, then you are not really having clinical depression.
It’s like asking a type 2 diabetic to stop being so resistant to insuline. If your body can stop resisting insuline, then it’s not diabetic.
Yep, this is akin to: “Depressed? Just say no.” “Depressive thoughts cannot legally enter your mind if you don’t have them.”
People don’t realize that overfeeding is not the real cause of the problem, but rather a consequence.
Leaving a lithium battery charging for a long time, even when it’s already 100% can degrade it.
Most devices have failsafes against this, but I still always try to not leave a device charging if its already mostly full… perhaps it’s just me being paranoid, but what I rather do is set up rules so that the phone automatically goes into airplane/battery saving mode at night.
I liked how, when you had an alarm set up, you could even switch off the phone and it’d still turn itself on automatically in the morning and ring to wake you up. It was actually more reliable than dedicated alarm clocks, since those needed manual time adjustment when there was a winter/summer time change, or when there was a power outage.
Nowadays, I always have to double check the phone has enough charge before going to sleep.
The AI can only judge by having a neural network trained on what’s a human and what’s an AI (and btw, for that training you need humans)… which means you can break that test by making an AI that also accesses that same neural network and uses it to self-test the responses before outputting them, providing only exactly the kind of output the other AI would give a “human” verdict on.
So I don’t think that would work very well, it’ll just be a cat & mouse race between the AIs.
It could still be bayesian reasoning, but a much more complex one, underlaid by a lot of preconceptions (which could have also been acquired in a bayesian way).
Even if the result is random, a highly pre-trained bayessian network that has the experience of seeing many puzzles or tests before that do follow non-random patterns might expect a non-random pattern… so those people might have learned to not expect true randomness, since most things aren’t random.
Yes… the chinese experiment misses the point, because the Turing test was never really about figuring out whether or not an algorithm has “conscience” (what is that even?)… but about determining if an algorithm can exhibit inteligent behavior that’s equivalent/indistinguishable from a human.
The chinese room is useless because the only thing it proves is that people don’t know what conscience is, or what are they even are trying to test.
A test that didn’t require a human could theoretically be tested automatically by the machine preemptively and solved easily.
I can’t imagine how would you test this in a way that wouldn’t require a human.
New study: cancer not linked to death.
Note that the subreddit will not disappear. All this means is that the actual Minecraft devs will no longer be using it for official announcements / collect feedback (that’s why the “thanks for the feedback”). Instead now they ask people to use the existing feedback channels.
It might affect the IPO if this happens more generally or causes a trend, but I don’t think it’s such a big deal. It’s not like they are sunsetting the subreddit. And even if they did, the reddit admins can simply mark the channel as abandoned and allow for new mods to take it over. So the community there will most likely continue as it was. I bet most people didn’t even know the official devs were there.
They will stick to their already existing proprietary feedback channels.
And I doubt the subreddit will disappear, it’s just that it will no longer be “official”. I don’t see them stating anywhere that they will set it to private or something… and even if they did, the reddit admins can simply mark the channel as abandoned and allow for new mods to take it over.
To be honest, I feel this is simply the most convenient strategic move for Mojang. As a company I would have done the same, they no longer have to bring employees to support a third party platform and at the same time they get to promote their own. And instead of getting backslash, they’ll look like the good guys for doing so.
But it being MIT also makes it easy for the company to just work internally by themselves to make improvements for their version of the software without paying anything at all to the original dev. They can even release a better product than the original dev using his own changes and unfairly compete against them without sharing anything back.
Whereas, if the license is GPL, they would need to hire the original dev and colaborate with him fairly if they ever want to make a proprietary version of the software (which can be done, as long as the dev is the sole copyright holder).
Me neither? That’s why I was hoping they might have added some markdown extension.
I have done it in the past with mardown-it-wikilinks npm package, for example.