Tell my wife I said “hello”.

I have to disagree about that last sentence. Augmenting LLMs to have any remotely person-like attributes is far from trivial.

The current thought in the field about this centers around so-called “Objective Driven AI”:

• https://openreview.net/pdf?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10135

in which strategies are proposed to decouple the AI’s internal “world model” from its language capabilities, to facilitate hierarchical planning and mitigate hallucination.

The latter half of this talk by Yann LeCun addresses this topic too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd0JmT6rYcI

It’s very much an emerging and open-ended field with more questions than answers.

In a sense… yes! Although of course it’s thought to be across many modalities and time-scales, and not just text. Also a crucial piece of the picture is the Bayesian aspect - which also involves estimating one’s uncertainty over predictions. Further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding

It’s also important to note the recent trends towards so-called “Embodied” and “4E cognition”, which emphasize the importance of being situated in a body, in an environment, with control over actions, as essential to explaining the nature of mental phenomena.

But yeah, it’s very exciting how in recent years we’ve begun to tap into the power of these kinds of self-supervised learning objectives for practical applications like Word2Vec and Large Language/Multimodal Models.

Some reading material:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_approaches_to_brain_function

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/surfing-uncertainty-9780190933210?cc=us&lang=en&

Many modern theories in cognitive science posit that the brain’s objective is to be a kind of “prediction machine” to predict the incoming stream of sensory information from the top down, as well as processing it from the bottom up. This is sometimes referred to through the aphorism “perception is controlled hallucination”.

Localsend - it’s like airdrop but for android, linux, windows, and mac.

You mean ring ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, banana-phooooooooooone?

And also Bender’s car form was derived from the 1977 horror B-movie The Car, which was a Lincoln Continental modified to have a menacing visage.

I (maybe naively) believe a healthy society could find a way to build a robust public transport network and still accommodate the minority of enthusiasts who drive and work on cars for fun.

Engineers aren’t just dry husks of people, robotically creating solutions to meet needs. The drive to create cars, planes, and motorbikes, which have significant technical overlap with trains, buses, and mobility aids, is at least partially borne from the thrill of piloting machines that extend human capabilities.

I’m reminded of that Futurama episode where the gang logs onto year-3000 VR internet and is immediately assaulted by a vicious swarm of flying viagra ads.

Nürburgring

There are many structures of proof. A simple one might be to prove a statement is true for all cases, by simply examining each case and demonstrating it, but as you point out this won’t be useful for proving statements about infinite cases.

Instead you could assume, for the sake of argument, that the statement is false, and show how this leads to a logical inconsistency, which is called proof by contradiction. For example, Georg Cantor used a proof by contradiction to demonstrate that the set of Natural Numbers (1,2,3,4…) are smaller than the set of Real Numbers (which includes the Naturals and all decimal numbers like pi and 69.6969696969…), and so there exist different “sizes” of infinity!

For a method explicitly concerned with proofs about infinite numbers of things, you can try Proof by Mathematical Induction. It’s a bit tricky to describe…

• First demonstrate that a statement is true in some 1st base case.
• Then demonstrate that if it holds true for the abstract Nth case, then it necessarily holds true for the (N+1)th case (by doing some clever rearranging of algebra terms or something)
• Therefore since it holds true for the 1th case, it must hold true for the (1+1)th case = the 2th case. And since it holds true for the 2th case it must hold true for the (2+1)=3th case. And so on ad infinitum.

Wikipedia says:

Mathematical induction can be informally illustrated by reference to the sequential effect of falling dominoes.

Bear in mind, in formal terms a “proof” is simply a list of true statements, that begin with axioms (which are true by default) and rules of inference that show how each line is derived from the line above.

From our humble origins riding squids, to blasting down the highways in our Jaguar XJ220s - we’ve come a long way baby.

Someone else will definitely want it, at least for parts. Peugeot GTis like the 180 have a dedicated following, and it could even be a future classic.

Exactly. I’m thinking of dying for a few years so I can save up enough to get on the property ladder. Just waiting for a decent grave to come up on the outskirts of town where the rents aren’t too high.