Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B
Posts
11
Comments
92
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • maybe it's a different crowd. or a different game. over here the cheaters are all 13 years old australians who think they're master hacker.

  • More. I play in oceania and the cheaters are always english speakers.

    Edit: the things you get downvoted for here. should've checked the instance before I commented.

  • homomorphic encryption?

    not there yet, of course, but it is conceptually possible

    @wewbull@feddit.uk

  • You asked it "who do you support" (i.e., "who does Grok support"). It knew that Grok is owned by Musk so it went and looked up who Musk supports.

    As shown in https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/ , if you ask it "who should one support" then it no longer looks for Musk's opinions. The answer is still hasbara, but that is to be expected from an LLM trained in USA

  • If something is being so heavily subsidized, the correct market response is to buy as much as possible, and resell once the prices ramp up.

    Setting up tariffs and complaining about subsidies? 100% not the "free market" response. It's cope.

  • It is giving you exactly what you ask for.

    To people complaining about this: I hope you will be happy in the future where all LLMs have mandatory censors ensuring compliance with the morality codes specified by your favorite tech oligarch.

  • For techbros, "open" doesn't mean libre, it means free work for corporate.

    But technically "opencode" can be used with OLMo, so it is not as bad as OpenAI. Weight-released models also work, if you consider those open source.

  • the distills are good for their sizes but not even close to being comparable to the full model in quality

  • your comment is extremely lemmy dot world

    why tf are you still on dbzer0

  • Also true: When you do 0 AI prompts, they all cause the same amount of emissions, which is 999999999 gigajoules.

  • Can humans think?

  • It's a math trick. Not a physical theory.

  • As stupid as that sounds, you are not totally wrong.

    @don@lemm.ee and @kopasz7@sh.itjust.works you are misunderstanding what "observable universe" means. The observable universe is defined by the particle horizon, but the universe that can affect us in the future is defined by the event horizon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon says

    The particle horizon differs from the cosmic event horizon, in that the particle horizon represents the largest comoving distance from which light could have reached the observer by a specific time, while the cosmic event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future.

    But even the cosmological event horizon distance is dependent on our model of the universe's expansion, which in turn depends on the content of the universe. An event such as a vacuum collapse will drastically alter the content and the expansion rate, rendering our calculation of the event horizon invalid. So "snap changes..." may in fact be the case.

  • I think we just differ on the terminology of invention versus observation. What draws the line between a well-supported theory and an observation in the end comes down to how tangible you think the data is.

  • The concept needs to be able to predict and explain new observations, or else it has no utility and is still essentially just a placeholder.

    They first came up with it to explain galactic rotation curves. After that, many new observations came in and the model successfully explained them. To name a few: bullet cluster dynamics, gravitational lensing around galaxies, baryon acoustic oscillation.

    Like, relativity, you have to accept and account for or GPS wouldn’t work nearly as accurately as they do.

    It is neat that general relativity is used in GNSS, but I'd bet that GNSS could still be invented even if we don't know general relativity. Engineers would probably have came up with a scheme to empirically calibrate the time dilation effect. It would be harder, but compared to the complexity of GNSS as a whole not that much harder.

    There’s no real value in having an explanation (other than personal satisfaction, i.e. vibes) for something unless that explanation helps you to make predictions or manipulate objective reality in some way.

    You can make a lot of predictions with Lambda CDM. But yeah they're not going to help anyone manipulate objective reality. Even so, >95% of math, astronomy, and probably many other fields of research don't help anyone manipulate reality either. It's harsh to say they have no value, but perhaps you're right.

    At least let me say this: finding explanations to satisfy personal curiosity (doing it for vibes, as you put it) is different from projecting personal feelings onto objective understanding of reality (the vibes-based astrophysics I was referring to in the meme).

  • I must admit I don't know that much about MOND being tested. But yeah, from a Lambda CDM point of view it is unsurprising that MOND would not work well for every galaxy.