Much harder to smash a piece of paper/plastic and it's kept protected whem not needed, while phone is constantly in use. Also paper can't brake down randomly.
If being forgery-resistant is the argument for paper docs, a passport that identifies me using strong cryptography is just as forgery-resistant (likely more so). And we could do a cryptographic verification without a persistent internet connection. (Or can’t we?)
Even when there's no connection, no electricity, you get some modest layer of security out of "it's hard to manufacture a convincing fake passport if you don't have large-scale resources behind you."
What happens then with app-only passports? Do we close the border crossing entirely until the network is back up? Or do we rely on showing a QR code or NFC handshake that can't be properly verified? I'd think creating a fake passport app that reached those hurdles would probably be easier than getting access to specialized papers and printing technology.
A passport with strong cryptography would be forgery-resistant, however it is dependent on some form of PKI to distribute the public keys to every customs/border inspection point across the world, for every passport-issuing nation.
I agree with you as far as the current state of LLMs, but I also feel like we humans have preconceived notions of “thought” and “reasoning”, and are a bit prideful of them.
We see the LLM sometimes do sort of well at a whole bunch of tasks. But it makes silly mistakes that seem obvious to us. We say, “Ah ha! So it can’t reason after all”.
Say LLMs get a bit better, to the point they can beat chess grandmasters 55% of the time. This is quite good. Low level chess players rarely ever beat grandmasters, after all. But, the LLM spits out illegal moves sometimes and sometimes blunders nonsensically. So we say, “Ah ha! So it can’t reason after all”.
But what would it matter if it can reason? Beating grandmasters 55% of the time would make it among the best chess players in the world.
For now, LLMs just aren’t that good. They are too error prone and inconsistent and nonsensical. But they are also sort weirdly capable at lots of things in strange inconsistent ways, and assuming they continue to improve, I think they will tend to defy our typical notions of human intelligence.
reating gradmasters 55% of the time is not good. We've been beating almost 100% of grandmasters in the 90's.
And when even llm's that are good at chess run, I had recently read an article about someone who examined them from this aspect. They said that if the llm fails to come up with a legal move within 10 tries, a random move is played instead. And this was common.
Not even a beginner would attempt 10 illegal moves in a row, after their first few games. The state of LLM chess is laughably bad, honestly. You would guess that even if it didn't play well, it'd at least consistently make legal moves. It doesn't even get to that level.
> it's idiomatic in go to use short names like chan though
There's a linter which I like[1] that checks variable name length based on the scope of its usage.
The idea is a variable name can be short if it is used in a small lexical scope (e.g. a function parameter in a one-line function) because it won't affect readability much. But names should be descriptive if used in a larger scope (e.g. a constant used across a file).
I know if I like the taste of a new dish without being a great chef. And so can people know if they (and their friends) will buy and use a $3k - or $1.5k - VR headset.
> And so can people know if they (and their friends) will buy and use a $3k - or $1.5k - VR headset.
This is not the claim being made by the parent I responded to. Right out of the gate, OP said:
> I told my friends that the vision pro was unlikely to succeed or at least succeed culturally.
I.e. OP is specifically making a general claim about this product category, based on the usage habits of friends who are all - I would wager - using hokey Oculus/Vive-type hardware, and not Vision Pro.
It's the same rhetoric people were probably saying on alt.hackers in 1995 about paper film vs. digital cameras, and it's specious reasoning.
I only skimmed the article, which seems to argue for a level of well-roundedness in computer science programs (coming from an author who dropped out of their CS program in favor of philosophy in the 90s).
I’d sympathize more with this if college was not so expensive. If you have the means, by all means spend the credit hours on whatever you like. But covering tuition is difficult for many students, and graduating even one semester early is a significant cost savings, and more so if you can start working and making money.
Instead of “random humanities” requirements, maybe actually prepare me for a job. Provide industry relevant courses, or apprenticeship / internship opportunities. Or leave me time to do school and a job concurrently to help cover tuition.
Let me be done with school, and afterward I’ll learn a language or philosophy or whatever I like in my free time.
> Instead of “random humanities” requirements, maybe actually prepare me for a job
I can’t access the article, so I don’t know what the author is advocating. But there’s a strong case to be made that a well rounded education is the best job preparation you can get. Particularly so when you consider that skills age quickly and you’ll need to adapt and retool many times over the course of a career.
Of course, you need to master the fundamentals of whatever field you’re going into, but it’s very useful - economically - to have some fluency in other areas.
- It is not known that that the Romans used knitted clothing. Knitting was invented later.
- Knitting can be done with cheaper, easier to craft tools that are just as effective. Knitting doesn’t explain the cost and skill required to craft the dodecahedrons.
- There is no wear on these dodecahedrons that we’d normally expect from a well-used tool.
