I did not watch the full video, so this might be potentially mentioned somewhere, but: Trump’s tariffs are definitively not helping Intel at all.

Intel needs things produced in countries that were heavily tariffed, like Taiwan. It can’t produce them at home, those chips aren’t maize tortilla chips dammit. This additional cost needs to be paid by someone - whom? If Intel (price stays the same), now their margin of profit is smaller. If the customer (price is raised accordingly), now the demand drops, and Intel is selling less CPUs. Either way Intel loses money.

I’ll go further: AMD and nVidia are not safe. Once the AI bubble bursts, nVidia will crash really bad. And AMD is also paying the same tariffs as Intel, so while it might feast on Intel’s carcass - much like a vulture - eventually it’ll kick the bucket too.

If it is not a parody, the user got a serious answer. And if it is, I’m just playing along ;-)

(If it is a parody, it’s so good that it allows me to actually answer it as if it wasn’t.)

You don’t get it.

I do get it. And that’s why I’m disdainful towards all this “simulated reasoning” babble.

In the past, the brick throwing machine was always failing its target and nowadays it is almost always hitting near its target.

Emphasis mine: that “near” is a sleight of hand.

It doesn’t really matter if it’s hitting “near” or “far”; in both cases someone will need to stop the brick-throwing machine, get into the construction site (as if building a house manually), place the brick in the correct location (as if building a house manually), and then redo operations as usual.

In other words, “hitting near the target” = “failure to hit the target”.

And it’s obvious why it’s wrong; the idea that an auto-builder should throw bricks is silly. It should detect where the brick should be placed, and lay it down gently.

The same thing applies to those large token* models; they won’t reach anywhere close to reasoning, just like a brick-throwing machine won’t reach anywhere close to an automatic house builder.

*I’m calling it “large token model” instead of “large language model” to highlight another thing: those models don’t even model language fully, except in the brain of functionally illiterate tech bros who think language is just a bunch of words. Semantics and pragmatics are core parts of a language; you don’t have language if utterances don’t have meaning or purpose. The nearest of that LLMs do is to plop some mislabelled “semantic supplement” - because it’s a great red herring (if you mislabel something, you’re bound to get suckers confusing it with the real thing, and saying “I dun unrurrstand, they have semantics! Y u say they don’t? I is so confusion… lol lmao”).

It depends on how good you are asking the machine to throw bricks (you need to assume some will miss and correct accordingly).

If the machine relies on you to be an assumer (i.e. to make shit up, like a muppet), there’s already something wrong with it.

Eventually, brick throwing machines will get so good that they will rely on gravitational forces to place the bricks perfectly and auto-build houses.

To be blunt that stinks “wishful thinking” from a distance.

As I implied in the other comment (“Can house construction be partially automated? Certainly. Perhaps even fully. But not through a brick-throwing machine.”), I don’t think reasoning algorithms are impossible; but it’s clear LLMs are not the way to go.

You don’t say.

Imagine for a moment you had a machine that allows you to throw bricks at a certain distance. This shit is useful, specially if you’re a griefer; but even if you aren’t, there are some corner cases for that, like transporting construction material at a distance.

And yet whoever sold you the machine calls it a “house auto-builder”. He tells you that it can help you to build your house. Mmmh.

Can house construction be partially automated? Certainly. Perhaps even fully. But not through a brick-throwing machine.

Of course trying to use the machine for its advertised purpose will go poorly, even if you only delegate brick placement to it (and still build the foundation, add cement etc. manually). You might economise a bit of time when the machine happens to throw a brick in the right place, but you’ll waste a lot of time cleaning broken bricks, or replacing them. But it’s still being sold as a house auto-builder.

But the seller is really, really, really invested on this auto-construction babble. Because his investors gave him money to create auto-construction tools. And he keeps babbling on how “soon” we’re going to get fully auto house building, and how it’s an existential threat to builders and all that babble. So he tweaks the machines to include “simulated building”. All it does is to tweak the force and aim of the machine, so it’s slightly less worse at throwing bricks.

It still does not solve the main problem: you don’t build a house by throwing bricks. You need to place them. But you still have some suckers saying “haha, but it’s a building machine lmao, can you prove it doesn’t build? lol”.

That’s all what “reasoning” LLMs are about.

Fixed - thanks!

Found the dialectologist focusing on rural varieties.

Alligator: U-shaped snout.
Crocodile: V-shaped snout.

I’m glad the Romans never had to deal with the difference though, since alligators are only found in the Americas [edit: and in the Yangtze River basin]. Otherwise this explanation would still fly over their heads. (“V? U? SIMILE SVNT, FVNGE PVTRIDE!”)

It’s Lemmy, of course we’re going to see radicals.

What’s interesting IMO is that it got the first two and the last two digits right; and this seems rather consistent across attempts with big numbers. It doesn’t “know” how to multiply numbers, but it’s “trying” to output an answer that looks correct.

In other words, it’s “bullshitting” - showing disregard to truth value, but trying to convince you.

Sorry beforehand for the wall of text.

My two cents: enforce rationality.

Due to the nature of their content, drama communities tend to attract people who are addicted to feeling outraged, and who feel emotional fulfilment when others validate with their outrage. I’ll call them “outrage addicts”.

They will often get completely irrational, and screech at anyone who dares to highlight the “target” of the outrage (a situation or a person) is not so bad - because they interpret it as “someone is trying to deny my emotional fulfilment, why are they attacking my feelings?”

This exerts selective pressure in the community: outrage addicts will stay, no matter if they get bad interactions or downvotes, since the comm fulfils their emotional need. Everyone else ends leaving, because people hate dumb fucks who screech at you when you highlight cat shit is not as bad of a problem as elephant shit.

In the process, as outrage addicts interact more and more with each other, fuelling each other’s outrage, the comm develops a strong and extreme hivemind, that sounds a lot like “Don’t you dare to condone that piece of shit, by disagreeing with Us”.

(For example, if you highlight that “euthanising a 12yo dog with terminal cancer” is not the same as “killing puppies”, people in a comm like this will screech at you “WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING PUPPY KILLERS?”)

I do not think this community reached this point yet, but the large amount of reports hints this process is underway. And if it is underway, it’ll become worse over time.

Those outrage addicts need to be detected and removed early. And IMO the best way to do so is by their irrationality - because, while “this deserves the hate” is subjective, “this is irrational” is not.

Focus specially on people who are eager to:

1. Shift the discussion from what is being said to who says it.
2. Actively ignore context, subtleties, gradations, when talking about a situation or a person.
3. Dogpile.

This will likely require active monitoring, so you’ll need new moderators consistently checking comments, regardless of reports. Make sure they’re all in the same page, and they personally avoid moderating discussions they’re emotionally invested into.

So, that’s a turdigrade?
…I’ll take my leave.

Fuck, this reminds me I was going to sub this movie into Classical Latin, but never finished the translation - only this scene.

It’s completely off-topic, but:

We used to have a rather large sisal fibre mat/rug at home, that Siegfrieda (my cat) used to scratch. However my mum got some hate boner against that mat, and replaced it with an actual rug. That’s when Frieda decided she’d hop onto the sofa and chairs and scratch them.

We bought her a scratching post - and she simply ignored it. I solved the issue by buying two smaller sisal mats, and placing them strategically in places Frieda hangs around. And then slapping her butt every time she used them, for positive behaviour reinforcement (“I’m pet when I scratch it! I should scratch it more!”)

I’m sharing this to highlight it’s also important to recognise each individual cat has preferences, that might not apply to other cats. She wanted a horizontal surface to scratch; so no amount of scratching posts would solve it.

…she doesn’t actually scratch it any more, but I still use this analogy because it’s a light-hearted way to say “bullshit”.

And my cat says scratching furniture doesn’t damage it.

No load of hard cash is large enough to allow a company to systematically screw things up; specially not under an economic system that equates “stable profits” with “failure to grow”.

And Nintendo’s actions aren’t the result of [metaphorical] brain damage; there’s a consistent pattern here of exploiting brand value for short-term profit.

I worded it in a dumb/certain/silly way but, unless drastic changes happen, I do find it likely to happen.

Look at how often Nintendo is surfacing negatively on the news:

• harassing a small dev studio over patents,
• trying to kill emulation while profiting off it,
• bricking hardware already sold to customers,
• demanding unreasonable prices for new games,
• dictating if you shall be allowed to feature one of its games in a speedrunning event…

Nintendo stopped being seen as a company that enables your fun, to become one that gatekeeps it. That’s brand damage - and really bad for Nintendo’s console sales; people are only willing to invest in a console if they’re reasonably certain they can have fun with it.

And at the same time, there are voices within and around Nintendo pushing the company towards the mobile market. Remember Pokémon Go? Or Ishihara saying the Switch 1 would flop, because of smartphones? If Nintendo console sales decline meaningfully, those voices will become louder and louder. Eventually Nintendo will focus primarily on the mobile market.

However people don’t typically buy mobile games; the monetisation strategy is completely different - microtransactions, gacha, lootboxes, all that crap. Most players (the “minnows”) won’t drop a penny on the game, but huge spenders (the “whales”) compensate for that, so it works.

The minnows aren’t just freeloaders, mind you; they’re required to keep the game alive. So mobile game companies need to fine-tune the pressure in their games - it should be just enough to encourage people to spend some money on the game, but not enough to shoo the minnows away.

But we’re talking about Nintendo here. A company willing to damage its own brand for a few additional pennies. Nintendo would not be able to see all those minnows and say “hey, that’s cool”, it would go full “ARE THOSE FREELOADERS STUPID? DON’T THEY KNOW THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BUY STUFF?”. It would tune the pressure way up, and ruin its mobile market, after it ruined its console market.

…perhaps it should go back to selling playing cards.

Two decades from now, people will talk about how Nintendo managed to ruin itself, from a gaming behemoth to some gacha subsidiary bought for a single yen.

You can’t spit it out after you already swallowed it! And the ones I’m used to don’t make any sort of hard shell, they simply wiggle their way into the fruit.

Not that it’s a big deal - if they caused any harm, I’d be dead already.

I wonder if that isn’t a protection against mould reaching the seeds.