• 1 Post
  • 235 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 10th, 2024

help-circle


  • A set of propositional formulas is satisfiable if and only if all finite subsets of it are satisfiable.

    The cardinality of a set is always smaller than the cardinality of the set of subsets of the former set.

    A set cannot contain itself.

    There is no 1 to 1 mapping from the natural numbers to the real numbers.

    There is a 1 to 1 mapping from the natural numbers to the rational numbers.

    Something exists. I cannot tell you what it is but it does exist. Maybe reality is an illusion but even then the illusion exists.




  • Fair enough, I think yours is also a valid interpretation.

    I just want to clarify: with “just be happy” energy, I meant the tendency of people to suggest seemingly simple fixes to others struggling with mental health. Even, if they work for oneself and even if it works statistically (for example sport is a good habit against depression), it feels like talking the problem down. But that is highly subjective of course.


  • Ok, what do you mean by checking myself first?

    I just commented on how I personally perceived the comic. I also said that I believe that the comic was made with good intentions.

    Ultimately, I am just someone on the Internet. I have no illusion that my comments here matter. Though, I do have first and second hand experience with depression and suicide if that matters, which it does not.

    And yes in many ways I am extremely privileged when it comes to this topic, e.g. my healthcare insurance is not tied to my employer as I don’t live in the US. I would like to know how that has anything to do with my comment above though.


  • What do you mean with “they just don’t want to”?

    Quitting your job, potentially losing your shelter and food supply is a hell of a risk. Presume one actually wants to get better, they first need to be well enough to handle such a risk. Otherwise, they are homeless and suicidal: A great recipe to get well /s


  • weker01@sh.itjust.workstoComic Strips@lemmy.worldLife Goes On
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    15 days ago

    I do believe this was made with best intentions but it has major “just be happy” energy and is made from a position of privilege.

    Just getting a therapist for example is a huge battle. Having supportive friends is not ubiquitous. Changing jobs is risky and in certain financial circumstances almost impossible, especially with dependents.

    That said I approve of the message that without living there is no possibility of things getting better. My advice is to focus on small maybe even tiny victories daily making lifestyle changes where possible.


  • Btw I didn’t down vote you.

    Your reply begs the question which definition of AI you are using.

    The above is from Russells and Norvigs “Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach” 3rd edition.

    I would argue that from these 8 definitions 6 apply to modern deep learning stuff. Only the category titled “Thinking Humanly” would agree with you but I personally think that these seem to be self defeating, i.e. defining AI in a way that is so dependent on humans that a machine never could have AI, which would make the word meaningless.


  • What algorithm are you referring to?

    The fundamental idea to use matrix multiplication plus a non linear function, the idea of deep learning i.e. back propagating derivatives and the idea of gradient descent in general, may not have changed but the actual algorithms sure have.

    For example, the transformer architecture (that is utilized by most modern models) based on multi headed self attention, optimizers like adamw, the whole idea of diffusion for image generation are I would say quite disruptive.

    Another point is that generative ai was always belittled in the research community, until like 2015 (subjective feeling would need meta study to confirm). The focus was mostly on classification something not much talked about today in comparison.




  • Something similar? I read a picture wrong going of a fact I’ve heard before.

    I was just lazy I give you that. I did not double check but after someone pointed the mistake out I gave better numbers.

    So how is that similar to what happened before? My main point wasn’t that I distrust the numbers they are posting but the way it is not backed up with good explanations and/or potential causes.

    Reading back this comment does come off as overly defensive but I am genuinely confused what I did that is similar and how I should’ve behaved better in the face of my error.