Guessing, but i suppose he might be referring to the implied-as-given duty ethics tone of the parent post, that easily comes across as an obligation to be blindly guided externally by norms.
To be fair, I didn't watch the video to the part where he mentions monkeys writing Hamlet, but I thought the point of the monkeys is that they will stumble upon a Hamlet by accident at some point in time, by randomly pressing buttons on a keyboard. Obviously, it would take a long time, but it would happen at some point.
I get the theme of the site is inspired by retro games, but the font makes it so hard to read the article, I had to give up. Too bad, since I like the concept of a retro game theme.
What is the purpose of this outside people with disabilities? Why do you need word highlighting, it's like those TikToks and IG reels where they show one word at a time to keep you hooked.
Surely, if you need this to read a book (again, besides any disabilities), you should stop your current habits.
Well, first of all, lots of people specifically do use this because they have print disabilities or neurodivergence that makes it challenging to read long stretches of text.
Also, disability isn't binary? Some people have an easier time reading text than others — is your argument that books should remain less accessible to those people for whom it's harder because you don't personally feel like they should need it?
And then there are _lots_ of people that just enjoy reading this way. Audiobook production is its own art form, and many people like experiencing the text and the audio together. For some people it helps them focus in a noisy environment, for some people they find they can read faster with the narration, and some people just enjoy it.
Every single time I post about Storyteller, there are multiple people in the comments insisting that this shouldn't exist because no one should ever consume books differently from how they do. I don't understand it, honestly. If you don't want to read books this way, that's totally fine! You can even still use Storyteller — it works great with plain EPUBs. Why the need to make others feel bad for the way they engage with stories? The world is a better place if more people read more books — discouraging people from reading books in the way that feels pleasant and accessible to them makes the world worse.
I think if you feel compelled to instruct people you don't know to "stop their current habits" because you don't personally understand their needs or wants, perhaps you should reconsider your current habits, yourself.
It's helpful for learning a foreign language to read a text while simultaneously listening to it. But when you're not very good at the language yet, you'll likely often fall behind. Word highlighting makes it easy to get back on track. I assume people just learning to read their first language would similarly benefit.
Even if you don't use the immersive reading feature, it's really nice to be able to switch back & forth from reading to listening. It's nice to be able to start reading right from the sentence where you left off listening to the audiobook. Storyteller is a great e-reader and audiobook player regardless of if you use the immersive reading.
Also, it's just fun to have the audio narration as you read. I typically set the speed to like 2.5x when doing readaloud.
Well, Kosovo and Montenegro haven't joined the Eurozone. They just use the Euro, but they have no influence in the monetary (?) policy.
Edit: I'm not the first one to point this out, so to add some new information: both of them used Deutsche Mark prior to Euro, Montenegro even under the union with Serbia.
https://fba.ryona.agency/ lets you browse instance block lists, sort by most defederated, who defederates the most, etc. There used to be FediBlock which maintained a centralized blocklist, but it doesn't exist anymore (gee, I wonder how something like that would end up eating itself?).
As far as reasoning goes, I think you can grasp how people would try and wield a tool like blocklists. A lot of blocks are merited, while some arent. I've had several blocks put on my instance from servers that I never even interacted with, for reasons that seemingly appear out of thin air.
Yeah, I do too; but it's just per-user. There are a couple instances that are so worthless that I'd rather throw all their posts in the trash than deal with their users individually, but I don't think that logic should be applied in general, which it unfortunately is.
Most instances of trolling can be dealt with by a single block, or reaching out to the admin, but basically no one puts in the effort to reach out if someone's causing problems (Hell, one guy even reported my whole site to my host without so much as a word in my direction, just for a couple inflammatory posts someone made).
And I don't think it's right to police what people are able to see and interact with if I'm running an instance with other people (if it were a single-user instance, that'd be different).
But hey, it's your server. You should do what you want with it. I just wanna do what I want with mine.
https://fedilist.com/ is a good instance browsing/monitoring tool maintained by the guy who runs fsebugoutzone.org, one of the more prominent and "fun" servers. He's a good dude.
You can browse by software, whether its open registration or not, allows tor, etc. You can glean statistics off of certain instances, which is really useful if you run one yourself. Most of the instances on the other side of fedi run the Pleroma software.
Mathematics is typically concerned with "proofs" [1], which similarly to code, often allow for strict validation. Thanks to reinforcement learning techniques, it is now possible to train LLMs to perform very well on code generation, and mathematical proof generation.
Law and medicine are fundamentally harder fields to obtain decent training data for, and LLM results are therefore expected to be less powerful. Also, making mistakes in these fields is costly, but perhaps you were alluding to that already.
Mathematician here. There is a lot of recent work on the Lean project -- when a proof can be translated into Lean code, then it can be strictly and formally validated.
But otherwise, mathematical proofs are read and written by humans, and at the end of the day the relevant standard of proof is what other mathematicians will accept.
Occasionally, mathematicians don't agree. For a prominent example, you can read about Shinichi Mochizuki's claimed proof of the so-called ABC Conjecture:
> Law and medicine are fundamentally harder fields to obtain decent training data for
I think this bubble has given a lot of people software brain and are trying to apply it to fields it is wholly inappropriate for, though. Law is about argumentation and rhetoric. It is about providing a persuasive argument. This is how it is taught. The actual legal code is a way to formalize parts of it, but increasingly I see people angrily insisting that the only thing that matters is the text.
As you might imagine, I find textualism a load of applesauce, but I don’t think the vast majority of people making this argument even understand textualism as jurisprudence. It seems to stem from Crypto bros and the whole “code is law” argument which is just codswallop.
A neighbor of mine whose husband is a lawyer said it's already part of his regular workflows. OpenAI also already have HIPAA compliant offerings targeting healthcare uses, etc. Of course they already do these things.
Well also you can't just throw AI slop as doctors or lawyers advice and fail multiple times until you find the right answer. With code and math you can have failures 1000 times for every success and still get rewarded.
They can rely on compilers, solvers, theorem provers to validate the generated softwares and maths. That’s what makes it possible to iterate quickly in a loop and self correct. You cannot do that in soft industries like legal and medicine
That is not the point I was making. I am not talking about validating software or maths. It can generate stuff that is valid, but bad and incomprehensible.
What I’m saying is that AI labs are talking so much about software and maths because we already have tools that can say « it’s all good ». That makes it possible and worth it for them to spend 1 week of compute on a problem until the validator passes, then publish marketing pieces. You cannot do the same in medicine or laws (modulo some niche areas)
Surprised pikachu :OOOO