AndrasKrigare 1w ago • 100%
I'd say it's not just misleading but incorrect if it says "integer" but it's actually floats.
AndrasKrigare 2w ago • 100%
Yeah, at least the Elden Ring has, don't think I've seen the others
AndrasKrigare 2w ago • 100%
I actually looked into this, part of the explanation is that in the 80s, Sweden entered a public/private partnership to subsidize the purchase of home computers, which otherwise would have been prohibitively expensive. This helped create a relatively wide local consumer base for software entertainment as well as have a jump start on computer literacy and software development.
AndrasKrigare 3w ago • 100%
Also made the switch not too long ago, only using Manjaro. Steam's proton had gotten extremely good at playing Windows games, so there's a good chance that it could run your old strategy game.
You might already have this on your set-up, but having wine auto-launch for Windows executables has been fantastic. I regularly pull and run Windows executables without really giving it a second thought, and so far it's generally "just worked."
AndrasKrigare 3w ago • 100%
I just discovered meshmixer has a much better automated way to create supports for 3D models than the default curamaker I was using, so it's renewed my interest in printing miniatures and such.
AndrasKrigare 3w ago • 100%
🫡
AndrasKrigare 3w ago • 93%
I think it's used more often in computer science, but the difference between contiguous and continuous. Continuous means "without end" and contiguous means "without break."
AndrasKrigare 3w ago • 100%
See also, defenestration trilogy
AndrasKrigare 4w ago • 96%
Gas-filler. There's a couple states in the US where you aren't allowed to pump your own gas, someone else has to do it for you, and you're expected to then tip them.
The job is essentially getting me to pay to be inconvenienced. I'd prefer to pay to let me pump my own gas.
AndrasKrigare 1mo ago • 100%
Exclusives are anti consumer
AndrasKrigare 2mo ago • 100%
I think to some extent it's a matter of scale, though. If I advertise something as a calculator capable of doing all math, and it can only do one problem, it is so drastically far away from its intended purpose that the meaning kinda breaks down. I don't think it would be wrong to say "it malfunctions in 99.999999% of use cases" but it would be easier to say that it just doesn't work.
Continuing (and torturing) that analogy, if we did the disgusting work of precomputing all 2 number math problems for integers from -1,000,000 to 1,000,000 and I think you could say you had a (really shitty and slow) calculator, which "malfunctions" for numbers outside that range if you don't specify the limitation ahead of time. Not crazy different from software which has issues with max_int or small buffers.
If it were the case that there had only been one case of a hallucination with LLMs, I think we could pretty safely call that a malfunction (and we wouldn't be having this conversation). If it happens 0.000001% of the time, I think we could still call it a malfunction and that it performs better than a lot of software. 99.999% of the time, it'd be better to say that it just doesn't work. I don't think there is, or even needs to be, some unified understanding of where the line is between them.
Really my point is there are enough things to criticize about LLMs and people's use of them, this seems like a really silly one to try and push.
AndrasKrigare 2mo ago • 100%
We're talking about the meaning of "malfunction" here, we don't need to overthink it and construct a rigorous proof or anything. The creator of the thing can decide what the thing they're creating is supposed to do. You can say
hey, it did X, was that supposed to happen?
no, it was not supposed to do that, that's a malfunction.
We don't need to go to
Actually you never sufficiently defined its function to cover all cases in an objective manner, so ACTUALLY it's not a malfunction!
Whatever, it still wasn't supposed to do that
AndrasKrigare 2mo ago • 100%
The purpose of an LLM, at a fundamental level, is to approximate text it was trained on.
I'd argue that's what an LLM is, not its purpose. Continuing the car analogy, that's like saying a car's purpose is to burn gasoline to spin its wheels. That's what a car does, the purpose of my car is to get me from place to place. The purpose of my friend's car is to look cool and go fast. The purpose of my uncle's car is to carry lumber.
I think we more or less agree on the fundamentals and it's just differences between whether they are referring to a malfunction in the system they are trying to create, in which an LLM is a key tool/component, or a malfunction in the LLM itself. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that it did a thing they didn't want it to do, and that an LLM by itself may not be the correct tool for the job.
AndrasKrigare 2mo ago • 100%
Where I don't think your argument fits is that it could be applied to things LLMs can currently do. If I have an insufficiently trained model which produces a word salad to every prompt, one could say "that's not a malfunction, it's still applying weights."
The malfunction is in having a system that produces useful results. An LLM is just the means for achieving that result, and you could argue it's the wrong tool for the job and that's fine. If I put gasoline in my diesel car and the engine dies, I can still say the car is malfunctioning. It's my fault, and the engine wasn't ever supposed to have gas in it, but the car is now "failing to function in a normal or satisfactory manner," the definition of malfunction.
AndrasKrigare 2mo ago • 100%
It implies that, under the hood, the LLM is "malfunctioning". It is not - it's doing what it is supposed to do, to chain tokens through weighted probabilities.
I don't really agree with that argument. By that logic, there's really no such thing as a software bug, since the software is always doing what it's supposed to be doing: giving predefined instructions to a processor that performs some action. It's "supposed to" provide a useful response to prompts, anything other than is it not what it should be and could be fairly called a malfunction.
AndrasKrigare 2mo ago • 100%
I've definitely gone to far with that, but I kinda of enjoy it. The amount of options there are particularly with being able to map a button to the mouse moving somewhere, clicking, and moving back, have made some games feel like they have native controller support when they don't
AndrasKrigare 2mo ago • 100%
Then I would steer away from arguments which are more debatable and stick to ones that are more robust and focus on the present and future than the past, and avoid anything that can get mired in debate. I'd focus on what the specific problem is (we will have fewer artists due to competition with AI) why it's a problem (cultural stagnation, lack of new inspiration for new ideas) and why alternative solutions to regulation wouldn't work (would socializing artistic fields work as they'd no longer be subject to market forces).
AndrasKrigare 2mo ago • 100%
To be clear, your stance is it's such a small step in the right direction, you'd prefer no step at all? Keep it cis-only or invest time/money in extra character models?
AndrasKrigare 2mo ago • 100%
Haven't digital price tags been used for decades? I'm sure these will be more high tech, but I remember ones like this at least 20 years ago
So there's obviously been a lot of existing discourse on DD2's micro transactions, and I'm curious to get the thoughts of people here. I haven't played the game yet, but the consensus I've gotten is that the MTXs are largely meaningless because they're so easy to get in-game, but if they *weren't* so easy to get they would be outrageous. It seems there's some amount of counter-backlash defending the game saying that those who are upset just don't understand how easy it is to get those things in-game. Personally, I don't think Capcom is dumb; my money would be that they wanted to test the waters to see what player response would be to these types of transactions, or that they would want to (quietly) adjust how easy they are to get in-game later on.
Formerly Zero Punctuation for the Escapist, now Fully Ramblomatic for Second Wind.
Notable moves: * Ravens are only keeping 2 QB's, Josh Johnson and Anthony Brown both cut * RB Melvin Gordon cut, Keaton Mitchel stays * WR Wallace and Duvernay stay, Proche gets cut * TE Kolar stays * They "released" CB Seymour, but he will almost certainly re-sign once players can hit IR * S Worley out
Tldr: -Josh Johnson +Keaton +Kolar -Proche +Kyu Kelly
I still feel far from great about the situation, but at least we're doing something.
Marlon essentially *was* the CB room, so I now have some huge concerns that our defense is going to get picked apart in the passing game
James Proche definitely seems like he's not gonna make the roster after being careless with the ball. I think Dobbins also lost some leverage given how well the rb room has looked so far
Generally seems pretty promising, but that's almost always true of training camp commentary. Some potential competition at CB2, Flowers looking good, but Odell dropped a pass.
I don't actually know how common that is, but I was surprised. I don't really know an advantage, other than it possibly being considered a crutch
I'll admit, I definitely think of 2019 Pierce instead of 2022 Pierce. I think the introduction of Roquan on the whole makes this a stronger defense than the start of last year, even losing Campbell
No bombshells dropped, but as good as he was last year, he didn't feel fully comfortable with the system yet. Pretty stoked for what he could do next year if that's the case.
I'm hopeful he'll be able to make those down field conflicts for us now that we have some depth of talent in the WR room
Only thing I worry about a bit with Hamilton is that he plays and hits hard, and if he's going to be more likely to get an injury
How important are reddit-style flairs for people? There's the raised issue https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/317 which has it listed as a far-future, with questions as far as how to handle federation. Personally, having at least an initial implementation done on a community level would be largely sufficient, with expansion to instance-wide being optional. The situation I've found most useful, personally, is sports-related groups with your favored team being your flair. This gives context to comments without constantly having to say "as a X fan"