• 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • This is a really good question!

    I believe the general answer is, until the compressed file is indistinguishable from randomness. At that point there is no more redundant information left to compress. Like you said, the ‘information content’ of a message can be measured.

    (Note that there are ways to get a file to look like randomness that don’t compress it)



  • Max@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    The original is something like “it’s all Ohio” “always has been”. The globe shown is just a large landmass that looks like Ohio. They’re probably astronauts since you’d have to be in space to see it. The astronaut killing the other has the Ohio flag on them and is killing them for knowing too much.







  • This is a really fantastic explanation of the issue!

    It’s more like improv comedy with an extremely adaptable comic than a conversation with a real person.

    One of the things that I’ve noticed is that the training/finetuning that’s done in order to make it give good completions to the “helpful ai conversation scenario” is that it flattens a lot of the capabilities of the underlying language model for really interesting and specific completions. I remember playing around with gpt2 in it’s native text completion mode, and even with that much weaker model, it was able to complete a much larger variety of text styles without sliding into the sameness and slickness of the current chat model fine-tuning.

    A lot of the research that I read on LLMs is using them in the original token completion context, but pretty much the only way people interact with them is through a thick layer of ai chatbot improv. As an example for code, I imagine that one would have more success using an LLM to edit your code if the context that you give it starts out written like it is a review of a pull request for the code, or some other commentary of a form that matches the way that code is reviewed in the training data. But instead of having access to create that context directly, we have to ask for code review through the fogged window of a chat between an AI assistant and a person discussing code. And that form of chat likely isn’t well represented in the training data.


  • I understand that you have principles. I have principles too. But it sounds like your principles are at least partly based on a personal purity, which is what I’m arguing against.

    The idea that by voting for kamala, you’ll be personally tainted by her actions. And that by not voting at all, you avoid this taint.

    There’s a good argument in my opinion for not voting if you actually believe it will lead to the best outcome. Like for example that if enough people don’t vote it will cause our leader/parties/etc to do something better. I just don’t think this is true. And if it’s not true, what remains is a purity argument, which I find selfish, since it prioritizes your internal view of yourself over what happens to other people in the world.

    I’m also absolutely in favor of third party candidates that push issues and the electorate to the left. I just think that generally they should drop out at the point when it becomes clear that they aren’t going to win and endorse the person closest to them on the issues.


  • The other option is that they simultaneously believe they need your vote, but also know that they would lose more voters than they would gain if they did what you’re asking. It’s not entirely clear that this is what’s happening, as there’s not been much indication that Kamala believes what Israel is doing is horrific, but it’s a very real possibility that you aren’t including. And in that case, voting for her remains the best you can do, since you not voting for her won’t convince the other people who’s vote she would lose. It will just lead to trump being elected.



  • As far as I’m aware, what you cited only proves that there is no ether that acts on light in a way such that the round trip time in the direction of ether travel is different from the round trip time in the direction perpendicular to ether travel.

    It’s not merely that:

    somehow the movement of this medium caused the speed of light in one direction to be faster than another due to the movement of this medium, measuring the speed in two directions perpendicular to each other would reveal that difference.

    Instead, it’s that the speed of light must be different in the two directions in a way such that their round trip times don’t average out to the same average as in the other direction.

    The theories of ether at the time predicted such a round trip difference because of the wind like interactions that you say.

    I believe that this in no way proves anything about the one way speed of light. The Michaelson Morley inteferometer only measures difference in round trip time.

    (Insert comment about the irony of your last statement). See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light