The punishment should be harsher than the crime. Stealing an apple might not be a "big problem", but it sets a precedent that taking someone else's property is acceptable under some circumstances -- say, the relative value of said object.
Morals are relative. I happen to align with Japan's morals, and wish Norway would take inspiration from it. We're on the far opposite end of the spectrum.
Says who? Please define your definition of the word "needs" here in this context.
With this logic, nobody also "needs" to buy a Ford F-250 Super Duty, a MacBook Pro M5, an RTX 5090, a recreational boat, drink Starbucks daily, etc if your definition of "needs" is just limited to day survival meaning just providing food and shelter but nothing more, and yet people buy them anyway, because it's entertainment, not because they need them to survive.
People will still want escapism and entertainment ESPECIALLY when their lives suck, like in times of economic depression, be it cigarettes, booze, junk food, porn, games, gambling, movies and TV shows, etc, even if you think people don't "need" them. This is how people function. It's scientifically documented.
Are you able to read and parse entire sentences and paragraphs in order to grasp the point of a comment, or do you form your opinion from a couple of random words you pick from a paragraph.
Agreed, but why not just finishing setting it up? Or do people own Apple TVs without iPhones? That never occurred to me since a large part of the value prop is phone integration
No, the value prop is a streaming device with a clean UX not filled with ads. My phone (which is not an iPhone) has nothing to do with it. Apple TV is a far better YouTube device than Google TV. It's also the best device for Plex, Netflix, and all the streaming apps.
What integrations do you use? I can't really think of what I would miss on the Apple TV if I switched from iPhone. I rarely use AirPlay, disable Photos for in-house privacy reasons, and… oh yeah, the remote control for keyboard, volume, and navigation via iPhone is neat! I think the Apple TV is just a strong product on its own.
I use screen mirroring, a lot. Guess I’m in the minority around here. Really nice projecting your phone on a massive OLED to multitask on the phone. Or even pair programming and conference calls you can mirror the phone to TV for the call while coding on the laptop.
I use my Apple TV like it’s a big iPad stuck to the wall. Because that’s basically what it is. I honestly had no idea so many people just buy it to stream the same content on every other platform
It's increased in lockstep here on HN as well. It used to be that I came here for the comments, but more and more the comments are going the way of everywhere else: Inflammatory, polarising, and more and more botted (both automated and human bots) -- no proof, but I've been around the internet since the early 90's, I see the patterns.
I even get sucked into contributing at times, which is why that descent into trash _works_ so well. I hate it, and I visit HN less and less as a result.
A single byte change in the input changes the output. The sentence "Please do this for me" and "Please, do this for me" can lead to completely distinct output.
Given this, you can't treat it as deterministic even with temp 0 and fixed seed and no memory.
Interestingly, this is the mathematical definition of "chaotic behaviour"; minuscule changes in the input result in arbitrarily large differences in the output.
It can arise from perfectly deterministic rules... the Logistic Map with r=4, x(n+1) = 4*(1 - x(n)) is a classic.
Which is also the desired behavior of the mixing functions from which the cryptographic primitives are built (e.g. block cipher functions and one-way hash functions), i.e. the so-called avalanche property.
Well yeah of course changes in the input result in changes to the output, my only claim was that LLMs can be deterministic (ie to output exactly the same output each time for a given input) if set up correctly.
In this context, it means being able to deterministically predict properties of the output based on properties of the input. That is, you don’t treat each distinct input as a unicorn, but instead consider properties of the input, and you want to know useful properties of the output. With LLMs, you can only do that statistically at best, but not deterministically, in the sense of being able to know that whenever the input has property A then the output will always have property B.
I mean can’t you have a grammar on both ends and just set out-of-language tokens to zero. I thought one of the APIs had a way to staple a JSON schema to the output, for ex.
We’re making pretty strong statements here. It’s not like it’s impossible to make sure DROP TABLE doesn’t get output.
You still can’t predict whether the in-language responses will be correct or not.
As an analogy: If, for a compiler, you verify that its output is valid machine code, that doesn’t tell you whether the output machine code is faithful to the input source code. For example, you might want to have the assurance that if the input specifies a terminating program, then the output machine code represents a terminating program as well. For a compiler, you can guarantee that such properties are true by construction.
More generally, you can write your programs such that you can prove from their code that they satisfy properties you are interested in for all inputs.
With LLMs, however, you have no practical way to reason about relations between the properties of inputs and outputs.
I think they mean having some useful predicates P, Q such that for any input i and for any output o that the LLM can generate from that input, P(i) => Q(o).
Having that property is still a looooong way away from being able to get a meaningful answer. Consider P being something like "asks for SQL output" and Q being "is syntactically valid SQL output". This would represent a useful guarantee, but it would not in any way mean that you could do away with the LLM.
It's correcting a misconception that many people have regarding LLMs that they are inherently and fundamentally non-deterministic, as if they were a true random number generator, but they are closer to a pseudo random number generator in that they are deterministic with the right settings.
The comment that is being responded to describes a behavior that has nothing to do with determinism and follows it up with "Given this, you can't treat it as deterministic" lol.
Someone tried to redefine a well-established term in the middle of an internet forum thread about that term. The word that has been pushed to uselessness here is "pedantry".
reply