I’m sorry that has been your experience. The language, like anything available and useful, can be used by anyone, and for any purpose.

It is sad that it has been abused by previous generations and in corporate uses to the point where we can no longer even receive emotional support without suspicion of intent.

I hope you are able to find a community where people who say that, feel it, and mean it, and partner with you to resolve the underlying issue.

A good experienced designer who has done esp32 before will have all these modules or similar enough in a library and can just plug them together.

Possible in a day depending on risk tolerance, almost always better imo to sleep on it. There would be no iterations.

But they will not likely do it happily in that timeframe. And you would practically never get them to quote it at one day, especially not without an inflated rate.

Yeah the framing seems inverted. We have a faster system 2 with llms, and system 1 is what decision models are hoping to be, but so far they just seem to be system 2 models without language output.

The terms don't seem to translate well, possibly because they were the wrong framing to begin with. Possibly also because the billions of years of progressively complex evolutionary constraint that brought about animal cognition does not seem likely to be reproduced by running backprop on human language artifacts.

The issue the anecdote is reflecting is that across the data of 50 naive made-up coin tosses there are too many alternating sequences and probably zero HHHHHH.

and it's different from 50 randomly selected true coin tosses because you think it's impossible for all of them to alternate?

I understand your point, but the context is that repeatedly, experiments have shown that humans inject too much pattern to be good rngs. It turns out that is visible with training after the fact.

Yes, it is possible that any two 50-sequence patterns are actual rng. But some of them are much more likely, and we can tell.

> some of them are much more likely, and we can tell

Yeah if you define randomness as subjective "stuff humans can't predict" then sure...

I'm not sure what your point is. A collection of samples were taken from humans, and they did not form a uniform distribution. Samples from an unbiased RNG are much closer to uniform.

Are you saying we should ignore the distribution we observe from humans and predict them as uniform anyway?

You say yourself "strings are equally likely if they're being purely randomly selected". So you move the goalpost to define "random" as "whatever a human would think is random".

> Samples from an unbiased RNG

you mean a PRNG.

> Are you saying we should ignore the distribution we observe from humans and predict them as uniform anyway?

I'm saying the exercise in general is a little pointless, but that's fine.

It sounds an awful lot like the halting problem.

Gemini has been like that. One early model I used I asked it about another company’s model. It insisted it didn’t exist. I told it when it was released and to search. It did, and found results, but told me it wasn’t really a public model and I couldn’t use it. I screenshotted the pricing page. It told me I got that from somewhere else, it couldn’t be correct, because it couldn’t access that page.

It is one thing to avoid sycophancy, but Gemini often seems to go well beyond that.

Fable will already do this, just very subtly.

See also Gödel.

I do not understand how your argument works.

You cannot choose, but you can prechoose? You cannot choose, but your physical identity chose the moment it was deterministically brought into being?

What does choice even mean in this context?

Pre ... choose? No, you can choose. You are a thing that chooses. Why is everybody so hung up on determinism? What do you want choice to mean? Really I think it's just because "deterministic" sounds like "determined for you", but it doesn't mean that. Everything is deterministic, including things that choose, by which I mean people. You are a fully paid up (and incidentally deterministic) person with the (also deterministic) freedom to make choices.

I thought of another aspect, which I'm going to edit in here since it's gone quiet. People might be having misapprehensions about knowledge in the context of "predetermined". I mean to say that rather than thinking "puppetmaster" you might think "written in the stars", and that you're tied to a fate that could be discerned, divined, from the starting conditions. But nobody can do that. If you and the universe around you are a program, the only way to find out what the program does is to run the program. Then you think intelligently, weigh preferences, have gut feelings, and all that jazz, and that's how the outcome becomes apparent. Nothing is written legibly in the stars.

So you are saying it is deterministic but unknowable in advance.

This does not prevent someone from building a you that runs on a faster substrate and pre running you.

It also gets into sticky territory on responsibility. Are you responsible for your choices?

The only way your choices can be non-deterministic is when there is no cause for why you chose x over y. A lack of cause means that the choice was random; there was no reason why you chose x over y. But that’s not what people generally mean by free will: they want their choices to have been made for a reason (even if the reason is just “personal preference” or “I felt like it”). Reasons mean causes, so we are back to the choices being determined by those causes.

Even when one claims “I chose x over y because I felt like it”, there will be reasons why they felt like it. There is always a next “why” to ask, unless you put it down to pure randomness.

I don’t see how you can escape this. There are either causes, aka determination, or pure randomness, or a mix of both. Neither gives you free will in the naive or metaphysical-libertarianism sense. (Which is also why the probabilisticity of quantum mechanics doesn’t offer a way out.)

This isn’t specific to materialism, it’s a matter of logic.

It’s worth reading Shopenhauer on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Freedom_of_the_Will. “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.”

I’ve read Schopenhauer but this is not complete in my view. He actually advocates for the will as a transcendental, escaping this dilemma.

I have been working on this quite a bit, maybe I can publish it.

One challenge with your approach is that decisions are frequently (if not always) multi-causal in origin, and the balance of influence of causation must be something we can weight in real time.

The bigger basic structural idea is that closures escape causal chains, and freewill is essentially what happens within a (specific type of) causation closure.

A further problem is attempting to enclose and limit reality within logic, which we know to be a finite rule system and subject to specific limitations as such.

Further, your same argument could be used to support the idea that causation doesn’t exist.

This doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think of causes as discrete things, just like physical fields don’t consist of discrete strands in time; nevertheless the field equations completely determine what happens from one moment to the next.

If as you say you take a set of causes and contemplate a weight distribution on them that determines the outcome, then that weight distribution is just another thing that either has reasons for why it is the way it is, or it doesn’t and then is just random; or a mix of both.

> Further, your same argument could be used to support the idea that causation doesn’t exist.

How so?

I actually don’t think of causation as a fundamental notion, but as an emergent one. What’s fundamental are the consistency constraints that adjacent events are subject to.

> A further problem is attempting to enclose and limit reality within logic, which we know to be a finite rule system and subject to specific limitations as such.

I don’t agree that (a) logic is necessarily finite, and (b) if it is finite, that it would limit reality in any way that contradicts our observations.

Beginning at the end of your comment and working backward, what do you think of Gödel Escher Bach or even Logicomix? It isn’t really a matter of debate that you cannot use logic as a universal construction toolkit for a rational reality, it has already been proven. Gödel vs Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead etc.

How do you propose causation emerges exactly? You are a kind of relationist?

You seem to be conflating “doesn’t have reasons” with “is random” because your basis seems be something like a relational rationalist perspective, which I don’t know of as a thing that exists. I don’t believe I have encountered it before.

I can see that some aspects of your perspective make sense, but I don’t see how the aggregate holds together.

edit: I forgot to answer “how so”: your argument against free will seems to be that any choice is in response to a cause, and causes infinitely regress, therefore free will cannot exist.

Both move the choice (or the cause), out of you or me and into the origin of existence. It doesn’t cease to exist, really, it just moves. But your argument, used to argue for the lack of existence of choice, can be used to argue for the lack of existence of cause, because every cause is caused. The term becomes meaningless then, one static continuation.

My argument is that the infinite regress ends in you (and me), because of the details of our construction.

Micron is the only one to bail, and they are the smallest footprint. No one else has bailed.

Samsung recently shifted some capacity from HBM back to DDR5 modules, freeing up around 80,000 wafers/month, so DDR5 margins are currently good enough to compete with HBM for wafers, or maybe they are anticipating a turn, or both.