ggppjj

Could be that the machine they have to make springs is designed to make single length springs and they changed it up a bit to accommodate making a double-length version by only changing the cut frequency or something similar

There’s a base default, for games that don’t have a valve default. Devs can also set a default themselves IIRC which is essentially the same as a valve default for the purposes of this conversation. The original implementation did not automatically allow all games without a valve default to be run, something that there’s still a setting for which is now default on. The override option overrides either the valve default if there is one or the base default if both the option to allow games without valve defaults is on and there is no valve default.

So if you override a game that does have a valve default and then remove the override, it’ll use the valve default whatever that happens to be at the time.

I really don’t understand the aggression, I was talking about the old rich dead people propaganda concerning no taxation without representation 200 years ago, I never said anything about the fuckwads we have today.

If you think I’m saying something different, explain what you read and allow me the opportunity to clarify my intent.

Saying I’m full of shit at this point is just asinine.

I don’t know, I don’t see anyone saying that here.

That’s possibly reframing “no taxation without representation” a bit but I don’t entirely disagree with the sentiment.

First three times I got the wheel it triggered.

I didn’t understand the memes.

Then it never happened again.

An ordnance technician at a dead run outranks everybody.

OK, what is the better metric? I’m not trying to gotcha really, but I use tap and pay and my banking apps very incredibly often and would not consider a phone where I couldn’t, and suspect that it is a significant driving factor for others as well.

Define many as a percentage of ~8 billion+ humans with smartphones or thereabouts

That’s called a sneakernet. Although, if you’re talking actual pigeons, you may be interested in RFC1149.

I’m gonna teach you a lesson on improv: “yes, and”.

A crucial part of your statement is that it knows that it’s untrue, which it is incapable of. I would agree with you if it were actually capable of understanding.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c64160-308c-8011-9bdf-c53379620e40

A false statement would be me saying that the color of a light that I cannot see and have never seen that is currently red is actually green without knowing. I am just as easily probably right as I am probably wrong, statistics are involved.

A lie would be me knowing that the color of a light that I am currently looking at is currently red and saying that it is actually green. No statistics, I’ve done this intentionally and the only outcome of my decision to act was that I spoke a falsehood.

AIs can generate false statements, yes, but they are not capable of lying. Lying requires cognition, which LLMs are, by their own admission and by the admission of the companies developing them, at the very least not currently capable of, and personally I believe that it’s likely that LLMs never will be.

Ask chatgpt, I’m done arguing effective consciousness vs actual consciousness.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c64160-308c-8011-9bdf-c53379620e40

What do you believe that it is actively doing?

Again, it is very cool and incredibly good math that provides the next word in the chain that most likely matches what came before it. They do not think. Even models that deliberate are essentially just self-reinforcing the internal math with what is basically a second LLM to keep the first on-task, because that appears to help distribute the probabilities better.

I will not answer the brain question until LLMs have brains also.

We did, a long time ago. It’s called an encyclopedia.

If humans can’t be trusted to only provide facts, how can we be trusted to make a machine that only provides facts? How do we deal with disputed truths? Grey areas?

It is incapable of knowledge, it is math, what it says is determined by what is fed into it. If it admits to lying, it was trained on texts that admit to lying and the math says that it is most likely that it should apologize using the following tokenized responses with the following weights to probabilities etc.

It apologizes because math says that the most likely response is to apologize.

Edit: you can just ask it y’all

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c64160-308c-8011-9bdf-c53379620e40

I strongly worry that humans really weren’t ready for this “good enough” product to be their first “real” interaction with what can easily pass as an AGI without near-philosophical knowledge of the difference between an AGI and an LLM.

It’s obscenely hard to keep the fact that it is a very good pattern-matching auto-correct in mind when you’re several comments deep into a genuinely actually no lie completely pointless debate against spooky math.

I think the important point is that LLMs as we understand them do not have intent. They are fantastic at providing output that appears to meet the requirements set in the input text, and when they actually do meet those requirements instead of just seeming to they can provide genuinely helpful info and also it’s very easy to not immediately know the difference between output that looks correct and satisfies the purpose of an LLM vs actually being correct and satisfying the purpose of the user.