Make them bid for their place on the queue!

Gotta stick your finger in there and find the center pull end.

It has nothing to do with the meaning. If your training set consists of a bunch of strings consisting of A’s and B’s together and another subset consisting of C’s and D’s together (i.e. [AB]+ and [CD]+ in regex) and the LLM outputs “ABBABBBDA”, then that’s statistically unlikely because D’s don’t appear with A’s and B’s. I have no idea what the meaning of these sequences are, nor do I need to know to see that it’s statistically unlikely.

In the context of language and LLMs, “statistically likely” roughly means that some human somewhere out there is more likely to have written this than the alternatives because that’s where the training data comes from. The LLM doesn’t need to understand the meaning. It just needs to be able to compute probabilities, and the probability of this excerpt should be low because the probability that a human would’ve written this is low.

I don’t think we would’ve had so many lessons on this in school if it didn’t need to be taught.

Have people just completely forgot how search engines work? If you search for two things and get shit results, it means those two things don’t appear together.

A sentence saying she had her ovaries removed and that she is fertile don’t statistically belong together, so you’re not even getting that.

About three times per day during the work day makes for ~800 times per year. Seems to be on the right order of magnitude to me.

The person you borrow from gets a small guaranteed win because you get paid a small amount for the privilege of borrowing their shares. The one who loses is whoever bought the shares at the higher price. That can be the person borrowing the shares, or it can be another person interacting with the stock market at the other end of your transaction.

Just because an English word was originally Latin and is written the same way, doesn’t mean it’s pronounced the same way. It’s an English word now. It has an English pronunciation, pluralisation and definition that can all be different from the original. “Kentawur” is not correct for the English word.

I would argue that they’re smuggling in fentanyl precisely because the less dangerous drugs are also illegal, so there’s no oversight in making sure they’re not laced with the cheaper fentanyl.

“Millionaires’ column”

High-crime areas can also drive up premiums due to increased risks of theft or vandalism.

It peaked when it was good enough to generate short somewhat coherent phrases. We’d make it generate ideas for silly things and laugh at how ridiculous the results were.

I can stand by this for an established business. But we live in a capitalist society where you need money to make money. Until that changes, your ability to pay for work doesn’t have any bearing on the value of your new business venture.

Why would you need anyone to buy your products when you can just enjoy them yourself?

An idea I’ve been toying with is that laws should be written like software with lots of test cases. It makes no sense to create laws with ambiguous terms that only become concrete when it goes through court. We should know what the law actually is before it gets passed.

The noise you add won’t even register. No two people are going to half-ass it the same way, so if you average everyone’s responses, the correct answer comes out.

You can make accounts with temporary emails through VPN on any website. This isn’t something unique to, or even new to Twitter.