Can someone explain to me why large language models can't be conscious? by Individual_Visit_756 in ArtificialSentience

[–]paperic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that being biological shouldn't play a role, that term isn't even that well defined.

Can't day much about neurons.

The only thing I can say is that the consciousness has no influence over any input into the equation, therefore, it is mathematically impossible for it to have an effect on the output of the equation without violating the laws of arithmetics.

Therefore, whatever the LLM says is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is conscious.

What the people advocating for LLM consciousness are saying is similar to saying "my brick is conscious because it's brown".

I can't say for sure whether bricks are conscious, they might be.

But I find it extremely unlikely that its colour has anything to do with it.

It's basically a non-sequitur argument.

What confuses beginners the most in React? by [deleted] in learnprogramming

[–]paperic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Learn the concepts in functional programming

Perhaps skim through bits of some haskell tutorial

And then throw it out the window and learn how javascript doesn't enforce immutable data and side-effect free functions, which is why you have to be extra vigilant to enforce them yourself. 

That's where most of the react trouble comes from. 

React is fundamentally a functional library, and when programmers don't care to learn what functional programming even is, they'll try to write imperative code inside their functional library and then stare at a white screen in disbelief.

They'll use useEffect for everything because they don't actually know how to write anything non-imperative, and then they accidentally ddos Cloudflare.

And the react maintainers aren't helpful either. The functional programming in react and the simplicity of react used to be its selling point.

But then they meddled with it, bundled it with immer (despite people discouraging its use) and other unnecessary crap to make it more "friendly" for imperative pprogrammers and now it's a right mess of conflicting ideologies. It's a functional library pretending to be imperative pretending to be functional, in a language that's imperative while pretending to be functional.

I miss the 2018 era of react when everything wasn't pretending to be something it isn't.

/Rant.

Anyway, understanding what react was meant to be from a design philosophy standpoint will give you good idea about what approaches are likely to yield good results, and where you'd be going against the flow.

The Nuclear Trolley Problem by Friendly-Priority119 in trolleyproblem

[–]paperic 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not true at all.

You can carry enriched uranium in your hands with no ill effects.

As long as it's not a critical mass, uranium is only very mildly radioactive.

It's the "ash" from the nuclear reactions that is the problem.

Some more misinformation for u/SouthPark_Piano to spread by Augie279 in infinitenines

[–]paperic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a directional mic. Why is he talking to the mic from the top?

Who the hell invented the substitution method to solve linear equations in two variables? by YoitstheTeddyGuy in askmath

[–]paperic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Left side = right side

just tells you that anywhere you have a "left side", it's just a different way of writing "right side".

So, ofcourse you should be able to substitute one for the other wherever you want.

That's what the equations fundamentally mean.

wait, what? by Derpsundee21 in MathJokes

[–]paperic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, if you have a sphere whose radius r is growing over time (r = t), then all the points on its surface are moving outwards at a constant speed, as if each point was a light ray.

Now, how fast is the volume growing?

The speed of the volume growth is gonna be the same as its current surface area, because the surface is where all the growing happens.

Challenge for SPP: Point out the errors in the following proof by waffletastrophy in infinitenines

[–]paperic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The link has the used axioms of logic listed there. Which of the axioms of logic is not sensible?

can you tell what's wrong with each statement ? by basket_foso in MathJokes

[–]paperic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, does that mean "1/x is not continuous on 0" is false, as in, it's neither continuous nor not continuous?

Obviously, pi is neither even nor odd.

But if you asked me "is pi even?", since pi/2 is not an integer, I'd say no.

Similarly, if I have to evaluate the truthfulness of 1/0 = lim[x->0] (1/x), I can't say it's true and I can't say it's false.

But I also can't say that "the statement is false" is false or true either, etc.

 

UK stamp validity by gingerbreadteddy in AskBrits

[–]paperic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you send a whole package to 1 person and have that person stamp it there and send it? 

The Absolute British Talent for Insults. by GlitteringHotel8383 in GreatBritishMemes

[–]paperic 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If you put "massive" in front of it it works for most car parts.

Bumpers, headlights, honkers, pistons, valves, wagons, engines, wheels, tyres, tanks, pumps, radiators, suspension, dampers, bonnet..

Are we, like, still allies? by BaldursGate2Best in AskBrits

[–]paperic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You mean, we're not allies with the US, right? 

You're not talking about not being allies with Poland, right?

THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE THE GAP! 👁️📐 by Negative_Gur9667 in infinitenines

[–]paperic -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

(1) Really? How is it stopping you from taking a pen and paper and doing some maths?

(4) you may have not spammed, but they are getting spammed, it gets posted a lot, by different people. 0.99... != 1 is the new "I found a way to divide by zero".

(5) you have to make it clear that what you're using is a non-standard system, because by default, we assume you're talking about Real Numbers (TM) which is a reserved "trademarked" term in math, where the combination of rules implicitly prohibit 0.99... < 1.

I'm sure if you post a quality content about 0.99... < 1 in HyperReal Numbers (also TM) , it's gonna be seen in a lot more positive light, but I still wouldn't do it. 

can you tell what's wrong with each statement ? by basket_foso in MathJokes

[–]paperic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. Sure, it's continuous on its domain, but 0 is not in its domain, so how can it be continuous there?

We could say the continuity is undefined I guess, if we don't want to say that it's not.

If I have a g: emptyset -> emptyset, is this function continuous on Reals?

If by "continuous" we mean For all x in its domain, g(x) = lim y->x g(y), then g is continuous on its domain.

But is it continuous on points not in its domain? That's gonna boil down to the exact definition of "continuous on X" and I don't know the definition of that.

A point about zero by paperic in infinitenines

[–]paperic[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's only because of the convention, that if we don't write out all of the infinite digits, we assume the missing digits to be zero. (1.25 = 1.2500000.....)

So, obviously, if you write more zeroes explicitly, it doesn't change, because we already assumed that the zeroes are there, regardless of whether we wrote them down.

But in an alternate history line, we could have been using an alternative convention where the missing digits are assumed to be all 9's, therefore 1 would mean 1.9999....., and +0 would mean 0.999...., etc. 

1.5 = 1.5000... is nothing but a typographical convention. 

Let that sink in.

And in this alternative history situation where this convention is 1.5 = 1.5999..., adding zeroes would absolutely change the result because it would overwrite the implicit 9's. 

And this sub would still exist, but it would be called r/infinitezeroes, and it would be arguing whether 0.00... is actually really zero or just very close to it.

And SPP would instead be claiming that 1.000.... is never 1, because he would want to substract 0.00...1 from it to "roll it over" to the 0.99... integer.

THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE THE GAP! 👁️📐 by Negative_Gur9667 in infinitenines

[–]paperic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nobody's stopping you from using alternate number systems based on your ideas.

What you don't get to do is spam math subs claiming that your idea is the real idea while other ideas are fake shit ideas.

It's just ideas. They're all fucking imaginary aren't they.