Kogasa

Web of trust

No. sqrt(2) is an irrational number characterized as the positive solution to x^2 - 2 = 0. It’s described by a very small amount of data. Even its decimal expansion can be determined up to any precision by a simple algorithm.

No other country even makes the first page

If every state in America were only 1% worse than every other country, then again the first 50 entries would be the American states. This is barely saying more than “America has the highest incarceration rate,” so it shouldn’t be a surprise.

This has nothing to do with Windows or Linux. Crowdstrike has in fact broken Linux installs in a fairly similar way before.

Sure, throw people in jail who haven’t committed a crime, that’ll fix all kinds of systemic issues

Catch and then what? Return to what?

It sounds like you don’t understand the complexity of the game. Despite being finite, the number of possible games is extremely large.

Bitcoin is more widely seen as a vehicle for speculation rather than a decentralized currency. Unlucky.

U good?

Your first two paragraphs seem to rail against a philosophical conclusion made by the authors by virtue of carrying out the Turing test. Something like “this is evidence of machine consciousness” for example. I don’t really get the impression that any such claim was made, or that more education in epistemology would have changed anything.

In a world where GPT4 exists, the question of whether one person can be fooled by one chatbot in one conversation is long since uninteresting. The question of whether specific models can achieve statistically significant success is maybe a bit more compelling, not because it’s some kind of breakthrough but because it makes a generalized claim.

Re: your edit, Turing explicitly puts forth the imitation game scenario as a practicable proxy for the question of machine intelligence, “can machines think?”. He directly argues that this scenario is indeed a reasonable proxy for that question. His argument, as he admits, is not a strongly held conviction or rigorous argument, but “recitations tending to produce belief,” insofar as they are hard to rebut, or their rebuttals tend to be flawed. The whole paper was to poke at the apparent differences between (a futuristic) machine intelligence and human intelligence. In this way, the Turing test is indeed a measure of intelligence. It’s not to say that a machine passing the test is somehow in possession of a human-like mind or has reached a significant milestone of intelligence.

https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238

I don’t think the methodology is the issue with this one. 500 people can absolutely be a legitimate sample size. Under basic assumptions about the sample being representative and the effect size being sufficiently large you do not need more than a couple hundred participants to make statistically significant observations. 54% being close to 50% doesn’t mean the result is inconclusive. With an ideal sample it means people couldn’t reliably differentiate the human from the bot, which is presumably what the researchers believed is of interest.

Didn’t ask

You don’t need to use the same one. Just don’t expose it publicly in libraries.

It’s a lot better with some notable exceptions. First, .NET Core is multiplatform by design, so it is by default quite portable. The .NET Core CLI is extremely powerful and means a CLI workflow is totally feasible (and also simplifies CI pipelines). The new “multiplatform” application framework, MAUI, runs on Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android, but not Linux/GTK/QT etc. You can maybe attribute this to the design philosophy of abstracting native controls, of which “Linux” itself has none, but either way it’s useless on Linux. Third party frameworks like Avalonia do work very well on Linux.

Despite .NET being relatively friendly with Open Source, Java will probably remain the first choice for FOSS devs for a while, if only due to history and traction. You could write a C# Lemmy alternative, but it wouldn’t necessarily be faster or simpler or better in any particular way than a Java version. I’d certainly rather contribute in Java than start from scratch in C#.

C# isn’t really the go-to for high scale distributed systems. But it’s extremely easy for a small team of developers to set up a really solid service really quickly. I don’t have experience with Go so I can’t really compare, but I find ASP.NET Core very pleasant to work with, and I also appreciate the suitability of C# and .NET libraries for both backend and frontend work.

Nullable reference types are (a completely mandatory) bandaid fix in my opinion as a .net dev. You will encounter lots of edge cases where the compiler is unable to determine the nullability of an object, e.g. when using dependency injection to populate a field, or when using other unusual control flows like MediatR. You can suppress the warnings manually at the slight risk of lying to the analyzer. Objects supplied by external library code may or may not be annotated, and they may or may not be annotated correctly. The lack of compile-time null checking is occasionally an issue. But that said, NRT makes nullability a significantly smaller issue in C# than it used to be

You can also easily write your own option monad or use a tiny library that does.

I don’t really query, but it’s good enough at code generation to be occasionally useful. If it can spit out 100 lines of code that is generally reasonable, it’s faster to adjust the generated code than to write it all from scratch. More generally, it’s good for generating responses whose content and structure are easy to verify (like a question you already know the answer to), with the value being in the time saved rather than the content itself.

Before I blocked the instance I had nothing but miserable interactions with Hexbear users, and it had nothing to do with political opinions.