I am working alone on MyApps [1], an app of apps where you can spawn any number of pre-defined "app windows" into a zoomable, pannable infinite 2D space. Currently it only features a clone of PureRef.
It runs Gundb in the backend, providing a privacy friendly, p2p syncing organization tools.
It seems that there is a persistent desire to call the country whatever you are used to. As a Turkish, I would add the points: You can call it whatever you want. Turkey is the historical name of the region. I believe the bird's name was also adopted from the fact that the bird came to Western world through Turkiye. The bird comes to us from India, so we call it "Hindi" in Turkish. I hope India one day does not change its name to something else because they don't want to be associated with what other people call them. Oh wait, they call themselves as Bharat(a) actually. In Turkish, the word "spice" is called "Baharat". Go figure.
Another important point for people who want to dead name Turkiye is this: When South Sudan was separate from Sudan, they were called South Sudan. Nobody disputed their name. If Turkiye split in two one day, one might call itself "Eastern Turkiye". In that case I just hope nobody tells them, 'no I will call you "Eastern Turkey" because that's what the other country was called which you were part of before.' We are not called "Ottoman Kingdom 2.0" for some reason. Now we apparently chose ourselves a new name to be referred in foreign languages. They did not consult me, tbh. But it fits what we call it in our original language (we call it "Türkiye"), so I am actually happy about it. So if you show respect to that decision then you show that as it is. If you don't respect it then, well you don't, and that's that. No kebap for you (/s).
About Roblox: My nephew coming of age invited me to play computer games. He told me to install Roblox but I haven't even heard about it and it did not appeal to me. I told him to install Sven-Co-op, because Half-Life is awesome and Sven Co-Op gives you multiplayer feature for free. We played for a while but he was dead bored and he quit. I was genuinely hurt but did not show it. New generation likes other things I guess. Then we played Roblox and honestly it had worse graphics than Half-Life, which is 25 years old game. Somehow it was boring to me but enjoyable to my Gen Z nephew. Well I hope he won't get too hardly shaken by the news, anyhow, somehow I feel relieved about this ban. These days he talks about "making his own games". I want to wait until a bit before I tell him the bad news about making games, but in general I am happy about the direction he is thinking.
> These days he talks about "making his own games". I want to wait until a bit before I tell him the bad news about making games
Part of the appeal of Roblox, to my limited understanding, is the ability to create content ("games") for it. This is the platform's two-edged sword, though, since their content moderation seems either insufficient or otherwise lacking for my tastes.
It's kind of the same problem with reddit: there is good content there, but there's also some of the worst things imaginable outside of *chan or *leaks. I pay a lot of attention when I notice any of my teenage kids are looking at any subreddit.
or, you just accept that different countries use different names for other countries.
Nobody calls Germany "Deutschland" outside of Germany (okay, outside of German-speaking countries)
Nobody calls Japan "Nihon" except people in Japan
Nobody calls Finland "Suomi" except people living there
...and the same goes for cities.
People probably still call it Turkey because they know how to pronounce it. Both the "ü" and the "iy" are very uncommon (and thus hard to pronounce) sounds for most of the world.
But that's the point: the name hasn't actually changed. It has always been called "Türkiye" by the people living there. What has changed is that they now want everyone else to call them by that name...
> Côte d’Ivoire
Nobody except french speaking countries call it that. It's called "Ivory Coast" in English, for example
Yes, they want that; why not do that then? Like with Czechia[1], Sri Lanka, the Netherlands and others?
Côte d’Ivoire is indeed also known as "Ivory Coast"; still, you can write a sentence in English with "Côte d’Ivoire" and it doesn't raise an eyebrow[2]. If that's not enough, there's Curaçao too.
A substantial part of the US population isn't going to know where the Ivory coast is, even less so if you call it Côte d’Ivoire, or why you're saying it in French.
Would they be better with a different country though? To be fair, a substantial part of the US population couldn’t point Iran or Ukraine[1] on the map.
We used Praat last semester in our socio-linguistics class to annotate voice recordings... For a class presentation, I went crazy and tried to build simple web-based annotator tool to impress my teacher. He ended up not liking it but the project taught me Django :D ... Here is a link (provides manual spectrum analysis for a particular experiment setup):
I don't know about Bhutan but street animals (mostly dogs & cats) is very common in Turkiye. From cultural point of view we see them as real residents of the place, we are taking up their land. So we are committed to treat them and feel responsible for their care as well. From a practical point of view, like other commentators suggested, they take care of the habitat - cats prevent rodents from going overpopulated etc.
And they are cute and friendly and nice to have around!
We have taken in two dogs from shi^D^D^D places with feral dog populations (Eastern Europe and Sardinia). Both were ill and heavily traumatized (took me two years before I was able to touch the one of them).
It took 2-3 years per dog and lots of financial and time investment for good food, medicine and upbringing to get them to be somewhat normal.
Are you sure you haven't simply rationalized the dysfunction away?
This is very interesting. This semester I am (B.A. student) writing a course paper on philosophy of language. Kind of taking a stance against Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment, I want to argue that a sufficiently developed "program" loaded into a rather "idle" hardware, could indeed perform mental processes that we humans are performing [1]. As part of linguistics debate, I also argue that natural language is a tool for "thinking"; everything we can think of, we can find expressions for (some people might be better or worse), but surely we cannot "think" of something for which we have no expressions for. At the end, everything falls into "something". In a way, our human language a perfect tool for describing this ambigious physical world which we experience through our senses and try to make sense of.
Thinking through these ideas with natural language, no coincidence that I tried a bit to find out; what should AI really look like? I mean its computer design? Around this time, I arrived at the following thoughts, and this paper really strengthened my reasoning:
I think that this "program" should be a combination of first order logic for reasoning tasks, and neural networks for any problem on which NNs are infamously good at, and as an answer to the holy grail of "talking computers" question, our "program" should have a "bridge" between formal logic reasoning tasks VS natural language, whose ambiguity makes it difficult. I studied a bit of computer linguistics in my bachelor recently, and "function(ambiguity) = first order logic" seems possible to me if we employ a number assumptions and linguistic tools. If 'it' converts natural language into formal 'action' statements and/or first order logic statements etc, then 'its' intentions could be inspired by human speech.
In that regard, I agree with the paper about that it should be capable of "formal proofs", which I interpret as first order logic in its essence.
I was searching "first order logic python or logic programming with python" on google, and to my surprise all the titles say "AI programming with Python", as it turns out that first order logic programming is a whole ass programming paradigm and researchers since the 60's have been developing languages like LISP or Scheme to precisely do that. I discovered a python package called minikanren, which as I understood adds LISP-like logic programming capacity to Python. It is a bit complicated but I am trying to understand it.
I believe with current NLP tools in python and a logic checker introduced with kanren, we can kind of easily write a program that understand natural human speech? Just bear with me here: Let's pick some hard examples. And this is straight from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle#Speech_acts
According to Searle, the sentences...
Sam smokes habitually.
Does Sam smoke habitually?
Sam, smoke habitually!
Would that Sam smoked habitually!
... each indicate the same propositional content (Sam smoking habitually) but differ in the illocutionary force indicated (respectively, a statement, a question, a command and an expression of desire)
Philosophers of mind and language has identified many such illustrative example of natural speech. In the example above, we can easily 'parse' this sentence to its grammar constituents (i.e. part of speech tagging, dependency graph etc.) with simple Python tools. Then using a small bit of magic of transformative grammar rules [2], we can extract the initial sentence (sam smokes habitually), now, we can also seperate this atomic statement from its illocutionary vector, having gotten this knowledge acknowledged by our 'program'.
Some immediate concerns come to my mind is that it is difficult for a program to still 'grasp' what it means to say 'Sam smokes habitually'. Even this is a tremendously difficult problem, it seems. Albeit it is a simple answer, I must simply say that we can add a background knowledge for basically everything we can. For example Sam could be anybody or even a dog. But if Sam smokes then he must be a human, because smoking entails certain conditions, which we can describe many, since readers are also humans, we can skip it. Since we know what smoking entails, and since Sam smokes, we can then conclude that "Sam is a man and Sam indeed smokes", and we can further extract the information that "sam actually smokes habitually", which a "program" which also understand it with its "entailments", that he smokes every now and then. Such that, if someone ever asks our 'program', would you expect Sam to smoke right now, and if the 'program' has recently observed that Sam has smoked, 'it' might give out answer such as "No, but he may in a bit", having also a pre-disposition that "if ask(user, yes_no_question) and if (answer == no) then; say('but' + answer_for_when_yes)" such that it would additionally say ".. but he may in a bit", rather than a cold resounding "No." answer.
I believe these are the stuff happening in our brains and we could try to simulate them with some bold assumptions and see what happens? We basically have mental images in our heads but they only gain their true meaning for us when we give names to them - so without language I don't believe we are much further than animals, and I hope to believe that this is more or less what mainstream thinks anyways. But I guess it is never easy to be sure of how our brains work.
I am curios what other's think. I am still very young and discovering all these early works people have been doing. It is so surprising that most of it are super new, and it makes it so much more exciting too. It is a shame that symbolic AI did not work in 60s, I guess they just did not have compute power to calculate the complexity of reality. But with current computation power, all ambigious problems seems to be dominated, from vision to seemingly "sound" language production (i.e chatgpt). So don't you guys think that we should indeed have a paradigm shift back to a symbolic programming empowered with Neural Networks?
[1] I can't say whether that hardware + program would actually be conscious, since I can't define it myself. But to me, all human thought processes seems to be reducible to very certain first order logic statements.
[2] Transformative Grammars: quite well known linguistic exercise, in which you convert a sentence to something else without changing its meaning, for example: Dog eats food == Food is eaten by Dog - each sentence has similar part of speech tags except their dependency graph is different, etc. etc. Chomsky and others gaves us all those rules
It's not just you. ChatGPT prompt "Write a short article about How to Stop Ruminating" gives about the same ...:
"Ruminating, or repeatedly thinking about a problem or situation, can be mentally exhausting and can lead to negative emotions such as anxiety and depression. However, breaking the cycle of rumination is possible with the right strategies. Here are some tips on how to stop ruminating:
Identify triggers: The first step is to identify what triggers your ruminating thoughts. Is it a particular situation, person or stressor? Once you know what triggers your thoughts, you can start to work on avoiding or managing them.
Practice mindfulness: Mindfulness is a technique that involves focusing your attention on the present moment without judgment. By practicing mindfulness, you can train your mind to let go of negative thoughts and stay in the present.
Engage in physical activity: Engaging in physical activity such as walking, running or yoga can help clear your mind and reduce stress. Exercise releases endorphins, which are natural mood boosters, and can help you feel more positive.
Distract yourself: When you find yourself ruminating, distract yourself with an activity that you enjoy. This could be anything from reading a book to watching a movie or spending time with friends.
Challenge your thoughts: Challenge negative thoughts by asking yourself if they are really true or if there is another way to look at the situation. This can help you gain perspective and reduce the intensity of your emotions.
Seek support: If you find that your ruminating thoughts are persistent and affecting your daily life, it may be helpful to seek support from a mental health professional. They can help you develop coping strategies and work through any underlying issues that may be contributing to your rumination.
Breaking the cycle of rumination takes time and effort, but with the right strategies and support, it is possible to overcome this pattern of thinking and move forward with a more positive outlook on life."
Yes it does. I am getting honestly tired at defending this position on here, I shouldn't have to explain why it is problematic that a comment or submission is AI generated on a forum that tries to maintain a high standard for discussion.
"High standard" implies more than just efficacy of the content.
Perhaps AI-generated content would be better than human-generated, but I just don't know if I'm ready to read a bunch of articles and perhaps interact with AI chat bots posting comments on hackernews without my knowledge. So hopefully you're human but if not, golden to what is ham semi-you heavily quality them implies of the article though you
I didn't say it didn't matter. I asked whether it mattered. Sorry!
My thinking was even if it is generated I find the comments interesting and engaging more than the article itself - same as with a lot of clearly non ChatGPT HN posts. But I can understand you point, and actually I agree.
I appreciate you changed your mind, but more and more often I read someone, playing the devil's advocate, asking whether it is a big deal if one posts content straight from ChatGPT.
To me it is absurd to even ask, and it is mind-numbingly tiring to have to explain why I would rather talk to humans. The fact that an increasing number of posters don't seem to have a problem with that makes me think this platform's quality of discourse will not last long (and the rest of the internet at large, but today I'll tone down my usual dead-internet doomsday predictions)
What makes you sure that the quality of AI generated content (that has potentially been the result of prompting and editing by a human) is and will be inherently worse than purely human generated content.
Where do you draw the line? Is using translate as a foreigner a problem?
> What makes you sure that the quality of AI generated content (that has potentially been the result of prompting and editing by a human) is and will be inherently worse than purely human generated content.
For the time being, I don't think you can trust AI generated content; quite often, when I asked chatGPT something I had to be sure of, it made mistakes. Take erroneous citations and references: do you think humans fake them the way chatGPT hallucinates them?
> do you think humans fake them the way chatGPT hallucinates them?
They don't need to 'fake' them; they can just be inadvertently wrong.
I have good, human, friends who tell me erroneous things all the time. I don't take them at face value, I check them. I do this for pretty much nearly every piece of information I get where it's going to inform a decision or point-of-view I'm going to take. Why should we be any less vigilant with a technology like ChatGPT?
What I implied is that we should be more vigilant with chatGPT. I don't think it is common for an article to completely invent a reference that does not exist, but it is common in chatGPT.
How did I not notice this analogy?! It is in fact true that a JPEG artifact upscaled with fabricated details is the same thing as a totally forged reference of a paper describing when to diagnose appendicitis in children. Thank you.
The content seems like a good summary of what you’d read elsewhere in pop-psychology blogs. It stimulates comments here which are themselves very interesting. And the internet isn’t going to run out of space just because articles like this are published.
On the other hand, while the internet may have infinite space, HN is limited to 30 articles on the homepage and I have limited time to look at them. A stale autogenerated summary like this is pushing something more interesting out.
At it looks like it might have been ChatGPT, I'm beginning to think that some people will (subconsciously or not) start using a slightly non-standard language and a non-standard way of writing things down, including small gramatical/syntactic mistakes, so that their writings could be more easily and surely identified as non-ChatGPT.
That would be a sort of creole language for the web (not that the web had lacked these types of languages in the past), a language that would be very rapidly modifying so that ChatGPT's training wouldn't be able to "catch up" with it.
Unnecessary. We already write in our own unique style, so if our post is longer than a sentence or so, stylometric tools can prove it was you and not ChatGPT.
I guess they will be the ultimate solution to StackOverflow's fight against ChatGPT too. Even Facebook, Mastodon, everyone'll have to use them.
Either chat GPT or someone generically reiterating what they've seen elsewhere. There wasn't really anything new here, no sources, just a summary of what other people have said.
I am guessing they are not other players live but probably recordings of older sessions, I did try to follow a few people and jump around to communicate but couldn't verify any response... quite a beautiful project in any case
[1] https://github.com/hrkck/MyApps/wiki