If the quality of LLM's keep increasing, will it emulate the abstraction shift that compliers gave us?
i.e. can useful deterministic complier-like behavior ever be found with a non-deterministic LLM approach?
In my view the answer is yes (for most people). I don't think the technology has to formally perfect to create a significant shift in how we write (most) software.
There will still be some who review AI code. Probably in the domains where people review complier code. But not everything actually needs that level of formal verification.
I miss PyCon US a lot and I'm sad I can't go. As a Canadian, recent USA ICE government actions have made it really hard for me to attend.
No conference is worth getting thrown in an ICE detention camp. This actually has happened to people from my country. [1] [2]
A big part of this conference is the non-USA residents who show up.
> We attribute this largely to the sad but understandable decline in willingness of international attendees, as well as some vulnerable domestic attendees
It seems like part of the hotel problem is the lack of international attendees that are stopping travel to the USA travel due to recent government actions.
In general USA-Canada Travel has been down all year. [3]
Hoping for a future PyCon that is as big, but I don't have to take risks around my freedom to attend!
The cases you link relate to someone with previous convictions that could affect their legal status and someone potentially filing faulty documents and overstaying their legal status. They were not just visitors, so not sure why you are comparing these cases to you simply going to a conference unless you are being deliberately dishonest to make a point
I concede that [3] is not the best case of this reading more into it. My point still stands though.
If visitors are one immigration mistake away from weeks in a detention camp, or any other unjust punishment it's reasonable that visitors would not want to visit.
A quick search suggests 25k Canadians enter the US daily for multi-day trips. If ICE was any real concern here for Canadians we'd hear a lot more about it I think.
I had a professor in university that would do this pre-LLM.
He would take the first result on google and modify his problem to be slightly different.
Students that copied from google were easy to find and missed a key part of the problem.
Seems like a natural progression.
https://github.com/srid/nixci
Is this the project or is this a completely different Nix based CI/CD tool?
I can't find a Github or anything on the website.
The experiment is conducted with 11 subjects diagnosed with ADHD by pediatricians and psychiatrists. Binaural Beats (10 Hz via wired earphones, sine waves) are used for audio, and pulses of light (10 Hz via VR device) are used for visual entrainment. This audio-visual entrainment is done for 20 days with 15 minutes of entrainment per day. EEG was recorded pre and post entrainment sessions using an Emotiv Epoc X device. The analysis revealed an improvement in 8 subjects out of 11 subjects in terms of attention and spatial learning. [0]
As for binaural beats and isochronic tones, it's all about using the right frequencies, how you transition between them, how you combine tones or beats with other music or sounds, the carrier frequency, how you synchronize lights with the tones or beats, and so on.
IMO controls are genuinely hard in AVE/VR studies. There isn't an obvious "inert" placebo, no light/sound removes immersion, random flashes or audio still affect arousal, and even "wrong" frequencies can entrain.
VR-only controls help, but don't isolate sensory stimulation. That's why many early AVE studies use pre/post designs and treat results as exploratory rather than definitive.
Also, what's the overlap here between people who believe a) the unborn have a "right to life" (or forced birth as some others call it, where the parent has no choice but to take the pregnancy to term and give birth), and b) those who think the parents have every right to decide not to vaccinate their children? If you believe (a), shouldn't you believe (not b)? And if you believe (b), shouldn't you believe (not a)?
Indeed. A lot of antivaxxers mockingly say "my body, my choice" but they are highlighting their own hypocrisy, not anyone else's. One critical difference between the cases is that pregnancy is not contagious.
For a lot of people these aren't rational beliefs, they're beliefs based on appeals to emotion. They will only rationally re-evaluate those beliefs if you change the kind of media they consume.
Another thing that seemed to work is the unvaccinated getting sick themselves.
2/3 of the unvaccinated COVID patients who were admitted to hospital regretted their decision, declared they would promote the vaccine post-discharge, and declared they would get it post-discharge.
i.e. can useful deterministic complier-like behavior ever be found with a non-deterministic LLM approach?
In my view the answer is yes (for most people). I don't think the technology has to formally perfect to create a significant shift in how we write (most) software.
There will still be some who review AI code. Probably in the domains where people review complier code. But not everything actually needs that level of formal verification.
reply