My bad, its Microsoft that keeps changing their recommendations, had it in my mind it was bad for some reason.
vcmj
joined 1 year ago
ICANN can pry ".local" from my cold dead hands!
Personally, if I can't go from human readable data to a complete model then I don't consider it open source. I understand these companies want to keep the magic sauce thats printing them money but all the open source marketing is inherently dishonest. They should be clear that the architecture and the product they are selling is separate, much like proprietary software just has all the open source software they used as a footnote in their about screens.
They mention this other article as a source at the bottom, it has pictures. Just high surface area objects made of reactive materials and 3d printing is an easy way to make them
Godot does have a special thing for mesh instancing, I think variations were possible as well like different colored triangles maybe? https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/performance/vertex_animation/animating_thousands_of_fish.html
The way I understand the users didn't necessarily realize McAfee is responsible, just that a bunch of sqlite files appeared in temp so they might not connect the dots here anyway. Or even know McAfee is installed considering their shady practices.
What's the bug? Bazzite is using a patched kernel for a reason I'm guessing, maybe your bug is patched anyway even if its on the older branch.
I do think we're machines, I said so previously, I don't think there is much more to it than physical attributes, but those attributes let us have this discussion. Remarkable in its own right, I don't see why it needs to be more, but again, all personal opinion.
I read this question a couple times, initially assuming bad faith, even considered ignoring it. The ability to change, would be my answer. I don't know what you actually mean.
Personally my threshold for intelligence versus consciousness is determinism(not in the physics sense... That's a whole other kettle of fish). Id consider all "thinking things" as machines, but if a machine responds to input in always the same way, then it is non-sentient, where if it incurs an irreversible change on receiving any input that can affect it's future responses, then it has potential for sentience. LLMs can do continuous learning for sure which may give the impression of sentience(whispers which we are longing to find and want to believe, as you say), but the actual machine you interact with is frozen, hence it is purely an artifact of sentience. I consider books and other works in the same category.
I'm still working on this definition, again just a personal viewpoint.
Not sure if this is the right answer I'm not familiar with that ecosystem: They have comparisons on their site
view more: next ›
It would be luck based for pure LLMs, but now I wonder if the models that can use Python notebooks might be able to code a script to count it. Like its actually possible for an AI to get this answer consistently correct these days.