obbeel

Bertrand Russell tried to logically confirm that 2 + 2 is 4. You can check it in Principia Mathematica

No. Printing statements, using console inputs and building little games like tic tac toe and crosswords isn't the right way to learn Computer Science. It is the way things are currently done, but you learn much more through open source code and trying to build useful things yourself. I would never go back to doing those little chores to get a grade.

There are lots of studies out there, and many of them contradict each other. Having a study with references contribute to the discussion, but it isn't the absolute truth.

Hey, that's a cool thing to do! I'll try it. Learning a new language through LLMs sounds cool.

He is cross checking

ChatGPT hallucinations inspire me to search for real references. It teaches we cannot blindly trust on things that are said. Teachers will commonly reinforce they are correct.

He didn't just sell books, he got signed by editors who published him worldwide. That's what I'm talking about. He was 'chosen' by the market.

Honestly, copyright is shit. It is created on the basis of an old way of doing things. That is, where big editors and big studios make mass productions of physical copies of a said 'product'. George R. R. Martin , Warner Studios & co are rich. Maybe they have everything to lose without their copy'right' but that isn't the population's problem. We live in an era where everything is digital and easily copiable and we might as well start acting like it.

I don't care if Sam Altman is evil, this discussion is fundamental.

When I first learned about it, it kind of seems like school bullying or something criminal. "Give me 50000 if you want to keep operating". It's kind of funny, but it is also kind of sad. Anyway, the decision has it geopolitical importance.

I have no access to the article, but it seems like we're one step closer to the Philosopher's Stone.

Maybe we just need a different type of NLP to work with summarization. I have noticed before LLMs are unlikely to escape their 'base' knowledge.

I think it's interesting to see something related to the magic posted in the other article. What it's all about. Also, the paper isn't that complex to read. It goes through talking about quantum simulations (probably through Qiskit) and the differences between magical schemas and ordinary ones. I think it's interesting to see what it's all about.

Scientific communicators try to be didactic about Science but always miss the mark on what's really going on, especially in Quantum Mechanics. Sadly, we don't see the same enthusiasm from these people for other areas of Physics - the classical.

If you're going to write "self-help" books on a scientific topic, might as well go all the way.

What I mean is, this paper is a fun read. Someone that has a grasp about computers will understand and appreciate.