Your calculator is executing a simple and provable algorithm, the LLM is executing a complex and non-provable one because the inputs are too varied. They are fundamentally different things. Your calculator is limited, but predictable and thus reliable.
Could the model not be trained to be nearly deterministic in it's outputs?
No. The technology doesn't do that. Instead of whatever ineffable process we use to correlate things in ways that make sense, it only and solely correlates things in ways which look like they make sense. You cannot train your way out of this problem, an entirely new technology is needed. Maybe to replace this, maybe only to augment it, but still fundamentally different.
Now?
Idevices have always been limited compared to their competition, deliberately so.
Yes, now is part of always. Why is this even part of the discussion?
However they're starting to need that artificial limitation more than ever as they kill OSX without wanting to kill the cash cow that is the Mac user, so your IDevice will be deliberately hobbled so they can sell you a slightly less hobbled Mac labelled IDevice for more money than it's worth.
Starting to? This is how it's always worked.
Are you stuck in a time loop or something? That might explain your confusion over these words...
We've gotten very wrapped up in the philosophical discussion of whether AI models are "thinking." But most people don't actually care whether we've reached some abstract achievement of creating "thought." Most people just care if the tool can do the job.
The tool can't do the job because it's not thinking, which is why people keep bringing that up. Think about it before complaining!
The best value an LLM provide, imho, is that they will like know more of the subject matter than you do.
They are stuffed with statistics about more of the subject matter than you're familiar with, which is not the same thing as knowing. Even if you trained them only and exclusively on correct information presented logically, they would still hallucinate bullshit that looks as statistically likely as factual information.
I suspect when the bubble bursts and dust settles, we'll end up with a kind of interactive encyclopedia as as useable form factor for LLMs.
An LLM could be a guide to a real encyclopedia with actual facts, but if you trained it on the encyclopedia instead of having it citing it, it would still hallucinate horseshit.
Yes, this impacts people. No, Apple doesn't care about pro audio folks. They demonstrated that long ago, and keep doing so over and over again.
You had me at "care"
As someone who had the B&W G3 Macintosh and was told by Apple "yes we fucked up the ATA controller, the same chip works OK in Sun US5 workstations but we botched hooking it up, and you can either buy an add-in card or use FWB Toolbox to slow down your devices by putting them into PIO mode so you don't get data corruption, and no we won't replace the logic board we fucked up" I know Apple DGAF in general. And hey, tie-in, that machine had firewire onboard.
I don't think they have to give them anything, more people will buy their game if it is certified. This has already been a thing for Steam Deck Certified titles, which doesn't even mean much.
Isn't that like saying that Apple stopped selling the "toaster" Macs so that Apple could sell both a computer and a display?
No.
Longer answer, you could buy lots of third party displays that worked perfectly well with Macintosh computers (and you still can) so that also means Apple can fail to sell you a display by not integrating it.
The iPad is something like the "personal digital assistants" from ancient times.
The iPad is absolutely capable of running Mac OS, but it's artificially restricted from doing so, in an effort to make you buy Mac OS. And there are Macintoshes which could easily run iOS, but they don't let you do that.
This distinction was created artificially and intentionally both to enforce a certain style of use and to sell more devices. The first thing is a marketing decision, that's understandable and even reasonable. The second thing is also a marketing decision which is also understandable, but repugnant.
There's no reason why Apple could not have simply let you run in both modes on both kinds of hardware, allowing you to choose, and to provide user interface standards for both types of interface — and allow apps to implement one thing or both. And there's no reason why they can't switch to doing that.
The question of whether they should be forced to do so is a lot more complicated, and even I'm not sure they should. But it's telling that Android is embracing Linux as the devices continue to get closer together, while Apple is still trying to distance their platforms from one another. But they're ultimately doing their customers a deliberate disservice. As Linux continues to improve, perhaps more slowly than it "should" but still doing so, there becomes less reason to stick with their artificially limited forced duality.
"We don't want to create a boat car or, you know, a spork,"
That's what the iDevices are now. They're artificially limited to try to get people to buy both an iDevice and a Macintosh.
Your argument doesn't represent "effort" anyway. We have protestors against Israel because we are funding Israel. We aren't funding Putin yet. When we are, we can have protests about that, too.
Your whataboutism is whataboutism because you're ignoring obvious facts in order to support your argument. What about this? The answer is obvious. But you're sure that there's some other answer.
Face it, we're well past the moment where we need to worry about whether or not government and military data is in the hands of big tech.
It's really whether or not government is in control of corporations, and of course the answer is yes. And that's where the "both sides" argument becomes non-fallacious: both Democrats and Republicans are united on giving them that control, and capital doesn't maintain the commons. It only wants to exploit it.
Granted, there were always ties between government and tech, we're just busting down the myth that those ties didn't exist, and giving much fuller integration rights to the tech elite.
Indeed: The military-industrial complex has been the home of technology since time was time. Many technological developments have come out of military research. The space program is also essentially military, so its developments can be counted here as well.
You're asking Valve to cut itself off from sales, and make itself unfriendly. What makes Valve appealing to gamers and license holders alike is that games can be on it almost no matter what (they even allow adult games) and there are only some labeling requirements.
What would be more beneficial to me than banning games is to provide in-app compatibility information, so I don't have to go to protondb.
why cant we have a consistent base API rather than compatibility layers...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F927%2F
We got here from somewhere else. But for the record, I blame Microsoft, and I blame 3dfx for enabling them. If 3dfx had done MiniGL from the start instead of GLIDE, then we would probably have never had Direct3D. Microsoft had a basic, software-only OpenGL renderer which was famously used for screensavers like "pipes" and would have likely gone with OpenGL if it was already dominant.
But in the early days of PC video accelerators, everyone had to have their own API, and there were a ton of competing GPUs. There were around half a dozen versions of Mechwarrior II which supported different video cards — I had at least two of them, as I bought a whole bunch of those different cards to try them out. Besides VooDoo 1 and 2 in their times, and then eventually tnt, tnt2, and a gf2mx which are all kind of after the period in which this story occurs, I had a Mystique (ugly), and a PowerVR (slow), and a Permedia 2 which was actually the best of all of them at the time but just a little slower than 3dfx. I know I'm forgetting another one that I had as well, and I didn't even have all of them! Now we have all of three GPU makers, and Intel is looking shaky again...
I'm super thankful that we have Vulkan now and didn't start going back to vendor-specific standards. I think you can chalk this up to complexity. Nobody wants to have to support such things when it takes so much work to switch APIs.
Nobody said it was an invalid comparison. That is not what defines whataboutism.
It's whataboutism because the comparison is not relevant to the conversation.
You don't get to decide what is or is not a mic drop when you don't understand the words being used.
In fact we had that here fairly recently, some older people who lost their home and had nowhere to go squatted in it and burned it down with a candle, with themselves inside of it.
There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.
