Air so polluted it makes people sick, but it’s all worth it because you can’t be arsed to remember the syntax of a for loop.

Nit: It’s “Death and the Gorgon”.

It’s linked here, so I’ll hazard a guess that the copy is intended to be public.

The pro-child-porn caucus.

Science writer Philip Ball observes,

Just watched Eric Schmidt (former Google CEO) say “We believe as an industry… that within 3-5 years we’ll have AGI, which can be defined as a system that is as smart as [big deal voice] the smartest mathematician, physicist, [lesser deal voice] artist, writer, thinker, politician … I call this the San Francisco consensus, because everyone who believes this is in San Francisco… Within the next year or two, this foundation gets locked in, and we’re not going to stop it. It gets much more interesting after that…There will be computers that are smarter than the sum of humans”

“Everyone who believes this is in San Francisco” approaches “the female orgasm is a myth” levels of self-own.

Back in the twenty-aughts, I wrote a science fiction murder mystery involving the invention of artificial intelligence. That whole plot angle feels dead today, even though the AI in question was, you know, in the Commander Data tradition, not the monstrosities of mediocrity we’re suffering through now. (The story was also about a stand-in for the United States rebuilding itself after a fascist uprising, the emotional aftereffects of the night when shooting the fascists was necessary to stop them, queer loneliness and other things that maybe hold up better.)

deleted by creator

Being unsure of whether you want to fuck robo-Maria or be robo-Maria is a classic sign of bisexuality among reconstructors of lost film media.

Yes, it’s a niche, but you know it’s not an empty niche.

I’ve noticed the occasional joke about how new computer technology, or LLMs specifically, have changed the speaker’s perspective about older science fiction. E.g., there was one that went something like, “I was always confused about how Picard ordered his tea with the weird word order and exactly the same inflection every time, but now I recognize that’s the tea order of a man who has learned precisely what is necessary to avoid the replicator delivering you an ocelot instead.”

Notice how in TNG, everyone treats a PADD as a device that holds exactly one document and has to be physically handed to a person? The Doylist explanation is that it’s a show from 1987 and everyone involved thought of them as notebooks. But the Watsonian explanation is that a device that holds exactly one document and zero distractions is the product of a society more psychologically healthy than ours…

🎵 I’m a drop-shipping girl / in a shittified world / chat me up / bot me down / let’s go party! 🎵

Having now refreshed my vague memories of the Feynman Lectures on Computation, I wouldn’t recommend them as a first introduction to Turing machines and the halting problem. They’re overburdened with detail: You can tell that Feynman was gleeful over figuring out how to make a Turing machine that tests parentheses for balance, but for many readers, it’ll get in the way of the point. Comparing his discussion of the halting problem to the one in The Princeton Companion to Mathematics, for example, the latter is cleaner without losing anything that a first encounter would need. Feynman’s lecture is more like a lecture from the second week of a course, missing the first week.

Comment removed for being weird (derogatory). I refrained just barely from hitting the “ban from community” button on the slim chance it was a badly misfired joke from a person who can otherwise behave themself, but I won’t object if any other mod goes ahead with the banhammer.

Stay tuned for inaccurate, stochastic ls.

it will be the closest thing to a mind meld we have for sharing information.

Sorry, the only people who get to talk about mind melds are the authors of Kirk/Spock erotica. I don’t make the rules.

… Wait, I’m a mod. I do make the rules!

The thing LLMs can effectively replace is Google search (and other search engines).

This statement is true on zero known planets.

All according to k-AI-kaku!

Fucking blood diamonds that don’t even cut glass.

Your first line is a confession that you are a bad person.

Regarding the last bullet point, there’s always the argument from authority, i.e., appealing to a book with Feynman on the byline.

Now when mathematicians first addressed these problems, their interest was more general than the practical limits of computation; they were interested in principle with what could be proved. The question spawned a variety of approaches. Alan Turing, a British mathematician, equated the concept of “computability” with the ability of a certain type of machine to perform a computation. Church defined a system of logic and propositions and called it effective calculability. Kleene defined certain so-called “general recursive propositions” and worked in terms of these. Post had yet another approach (see the problem at the end of this chapter), and there were still other ways of examining the problem. All of these workers started off with a mathematical language of sorts and attempted to define a concept of “effective calculability” within that language. Thankfully for us, it can be shown that all of these apparently disparate approaches are equivalent, which means that we will only need to look at one of them.

From p. 54 of the Feynman Lectures on Computation, by Feynman, Hey and Allen (the latter two being the editors who turned the tape recordings of the lectures into a book several years after Feynman died). There’s a pretty lengthy discussion of Turing machines in chapter 3 that does introduce the halting problem.

Enclosed please find one (1) complimentary ticket to the egress.

OK, I will reflect on why you think that comment was unfair.