Literally impossible. How could it produce heat without a LLM?

The ply count doesn’t reflect thickness or softness at all. Of the 3-ply toilet papers I’ve used at home, some need three layers to not fall apart on the first wipe, others are fine with a single sheet.

Not only does she got this, she’s being extra efficient by moving two pieces of furniture at once!

They essentially sell raw material. This seems like the least specific business you can possibly have.

Same price or cheaper? Then sure. Variety is good.

You can just turn the Latin characters on their side and all the connecting nodes will line up again.

I think you’ve lost the context for this conversation. No one’s disputing the reproducibility of QM experiments or for the existence of hidden variables.

The statistical nature of it doesn’t make it any less predictable

Exactly. Similarly, an all-powerful being messing with our world doesn’t mean we can no longer make predictions. We just end up with a model with hidden variables that change over time.

Maybe we use these terms differently in different domains. In my field, stochastic means that repeating the same experiment under the same conditions doesn’t guarantee the same results (e.g. rolling a die). The opposite of stochastic is deterministic. Something that changes depending on the day would be “a function of the date” or something that is “conditional on the date”. This can either be a deterministic function (e.g. calling date.today().day in Python, or a mapping from the date to a uniform distribution ranging from 0 to date.today().day) or a stochastic function (e.g. sample a uniform random integer between 0 and date.today().day).

Edit: I think what you’re talking about is the deterministic mapping from some variable into a distribution. We (as in my field specifically) do sometimes call that “stochastic” too, even though that mapping is deterministic. There may be a bit of terminology overloading here because what we care about in the end is the sample drawn from that distribution, which is actually stochastic.

How do you distinguish axioms from just another parameter of your model? If an all-powerful being is messing with our results, then you just get a stochastic model. In fact, we already have stochastic models in quantum physics. And whether or not the universe is a simulation doesn’t affect the model’s ability to make predictions at all, so why would it matter from a physics perspective? The model would be unchanged either way.

Does the concept of an axiom actually exist and make sense in physics? I thought we just had models.

It led them to the right answer. That’s positive reinforcement.

The intended audience of “stochastic parrot” was other AI researchers who do use the term “stochastic” on a regular basis.

Throwing an LLM at it is probably one of the most effective calls for maintainers. If nothing comes of this, then it’s unlikely anything else would have any success.

This holds when + is a group operation (concatenation) acting on the set of all possible finite strings.

This is rsync. The “piss” refers to AI code contributions.

I thought the second post was the joke, not the explanation.

And what’s that difference? Both will get you into a discussion on the merits of the other country’s system and the proposed solution.

There are many things here in Canada that suck. Is it better or worse than that of other countries? Should we try to copy what someone else is doing or come up with a different solution altogether? The way to figure that out is to critically evaluate what’s going on elsewhere, and that comes with engaging in discussions with others on those topics, which can come in the form of criticisms. We may also want to convince others that the state of things in those countries are bad and we should not try to model them, and that also often comes in the form of criticism for that foreign country.

It depends on how relevant I expect those changes to be to me. For programming languages or libraries I use often for example, I’ll always read change logs. For other software, I’ll likely only look at it if I’m waiting for a specific bug fix or feature.