Hand written assembly is much more powerful than a turing-complete high level language because it lets you fuck up everything. Rust and python are way too wimpy to allow a user to destroy their computer.
So you made a meme about how your opponent is completely irrational and you are a paragon of logic and reason, and then proceeded to declare yourself the winner?
Sorry. I am sometimes bad at trying to communicate my thoughts. When I was talking about categorization, I meant trying to fully define a person based on minimal interaction. I have known my friends for several years, so I like to think I can understand them, and I even put in a disclaimer saying I might be projecting my own thoughts onto them. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I'm not sure how I did.
I thought this was more common in neurotypical people. Like neurotypical people are a lot more likely to assign other people into categories than neurodivergent people. Maybe it's just the kind of people I surround myself with, or maybe I'm just projecting my own distaste for categorizing people's identities onto others, but I haven't seen my friends participating in any black-or-white thinking.
This happens to everyone. It happens because your brain registers the other person saying something before it actually understands what is being said. And when most people don't know what someone said, they ask, "what?" without even thinking. Source: my intro to psych textbook.
As knowing random facts is second nature to us trivia fans, it's easy to forget that the average person probably only knows a couple pop cultural references from the 30's.
Protestantism's central argument is that grace is gifted by faith alone. If someone says otherwise, they are not a protestant.
And before someone tries to bring up the myriad of 'baptist' churches which don't think so, please note that a central tenet of Baptist belief is sola fide.
This always cracks me up, because it's a perfect example of a snake eating it's own tail. "Based" was originally just a shortened way of saying "based in reality" or "based in fact", but new people didn't get the original context, so it just became it's own word. Then, the uninitiated started making the "Based? Based on what?" joke, completely oblivious of the original meaning.
Why do the leaders in AI know so little about it? Transformers are completely incapable of maintaining any internal state, yet techbros somehow think it will magically have one. Sometimes, machine learning can be more of an art than a science, but they seem to think it's alchemy. They think they're making pentagrams out of noncyclic graphs, but are really just summoning a mirror into their own stupidity.
It's really unfortunate, since they drown out all the news about novel and interesting methods of machine learning. KANs, DNCs, MAMBA, they all have a lot of promise, but can't get any recognition because transformers are the laziest and most dominant methods.
Honestly, I think we need another winter. All this hype is drowning out any decent research, and so all we are getting are bogus tests and experiments that are irreproducible because they're so expensive. It's crazy how unscientific these 'research' organizations are. And OpenAI is being paid by Microsoft to basically jerk-off sam Altman. It's plain shameful.
The issue with sonnet 3.5 is, in my limited testing, is that even with explicit, specific, and direct prompting, it can't perform to anything near human ability, and will often make very stupid mistakes. I developed a program which essentially lets an AI program, rewrite, and test a game, but sonnet will consistently take lazy routes, use incorrect syntax, and repeatedly call the same function over and over again for no reason. If you can program the game yourself, it's a quick way to prototype, but unless you know how to properly format JSON and fix strange artefacts, it's just not there yet.
Recently, research has suggested that LLMs can solve moderately more difficult problems if prompted to use "chain of thought" reasoning (CoT). In CoT, the LLMs essentially pretends to be thinking about the problem, where it comes up with a couple intermediate stages to process the problem. Of course, this doesn't really stop them from giving bad solutions to established problems, but it does cause it to be better at novel problems.
This whole thing reminds me of the proverb of the frog & scorpion crossing the river. It is simply the nature of the scorpion to act like a scorpion, regardless of what intelligence we ascribe to it.
One theory about nightmares is that they serve as exposure therapy for stressors. If your nightmares are too extreme, maybe you could set aside during the day to enter a calmer environment and try to review them without getting overwhelmed. It might desensitize you a little bit and make them less severe.
I haven't had severe nightmares since I was a preteen, but when I did, they tended to be pretty stressful (being kidnapped, being abandoned, my friends commiting suicide in front of me, etc). I'm not sure exactly why they stopped, but I eventually 'burnt out', and I just stopped really caring about them.
Can't say I turned out great, but I can say I don't have nightmares anymore.
Recursion makes it cheaper to run in the dev's mind, but more expensive to run on the computer. Subroutines are always slower than a simple jump.