Pedantic note: Yes, Meditations (a phisosophical treatise) was written in Koine, Commentarii de Bello Gallico (veni, vedi, vici—self-aggrandizing combat-reports meant for the senate and propaganda) or other "published" works from Caesar were not.

Although bonus points, the ancient sources portray Caesar (a proper educated major family Patrician) as speaking his dying words—if reported saying anything at all—in Greek, not in Latin: "Καὶ σὺ τέκνον" (Even you, child) rendered in Shakespeare as "Et tu, Brute".

In retrospect google since it's inception, when it was still good, google always actually relied on human curation. Primary component of pagerank were:

• "how much have people linked to this?"
• "how much have reliable sites linked to this?"
• "how good quality are pages from this site usually?"

(Which is still a way to get value out of google by adding "site:www.reliable-website.example" tags)

It was definitely a useful product, but ultimately it relies on human labor to surface quality results closer to the top.

Aaah!

PagerDuty suggestion popup: Resolve incidents faster with Generative AI. Join Early Access to try the new PD Copilot.

Also according to my freelance interpreter parents:

Compared to other major tools, was also one of the few not too janky solutions for setting up simultaneous interpreting with a separate audio track for the interpreters output.

Other tools would require big kludges (separate meeting rooms, etc…), unlikely in to be working for all participants across organizations, or require clunky consecutive translation.

I wish it were always that easy, few things in legacy code maintenance brings me more joy than deleting a single line of code, the solution is sadly often more involved.

The reality is sometimes more like fighting a hydra spaghetti ball, where felling one bug, uncovers/spawns two more.

The article almost looks like satire.

If all script kiddies waste their time trying to use generative AI to produce barely functional malware, we might be marginally safer for a while ^^. Or maybe this is the beginning of an entirely new malware ecology, clueless development using LLMs falling prey to clueless malware using LLMs.

The 100% mathematical PROVABLY_CORRECT proof of existence of the supernatural is at least funny.

It fails to prove dualism, which it then calls the supernatural for no adequately explained reason:

There is nothing new under the sun. Nothing a 3-lb-brain hominid does is impressive. Everyone dies and leaves behind nothing. If no God exists, all is infinitely meaningless. Fortunately, we can prove with mathematical certainty that the supernatural exists:

Would a 5-lb-brain hominid bring new things under the sun ? How about a 15-ton-brain corvid ? How about an acausal robot god wrought from all the ditherings found across the net ? If it is still so why are you so concerned with phrenology ?

1. You cannot be deceived that you are conscious.

So far so good, not too contentious, you need consciousness to be deceived, though I will note that it doesn't prove consciousness, only use definitions tautologically.

2. Consciousness, in itself, contains only that which you aware of.

No ? Not necessarily, that's overly egocentric. What about the Id ? What about collective consciousness ?

3. Consciousness is composed of perceptions and a perceiver.

A bit contentious, and not a very rigorous definition.

4. Perceptions are not composed of material things. Red is not a spectrum of light, nor a retinal activation, nor an optical nerve signal, nor a biochemical process in your brain: it is only the experience the perceiver calls “red”.

Qualia != Perceptions, but this is not the worst sin in this "proof".

5. The perceiver is not composed of material things. Neither quarks, nor atoms, nor molecules, nor cells, nor organs of the brain, nor the brain > itself experiences red. Associated processes happen, but only the perceiver experience red. To say that a material object “perceives” anything is a category error.

Does a perceiver without a body even exist ? I'm not really a monist myself, but this is clearly a leap.

6. Therefore, your consciousness undeniably exists, but it is not material.

Again does it exist untethered from the material ?

7. That which exists, yet is not material, is supernatural.

Hum no ? At best preternatural, and even then if you think the natural world follows Dualism, then the spiritual is still natural. I mean yes this arguing about definitions, but by god is this silly.

8. The supernatural exists.

QED.

A choice selection of musks deposition with TurdRationalist™ adjacent brainrot shibboleths:

Q: (By Mr. Bankston) And this quote says from the Isaacson book, "My tweets are like Niagara Falls sometimes and they come too fast," Musk says. "Just dip a cup in there and try to avoid the random turds." Do you think that's an accurate quotation from you?

A: (By Elon) That is acutally not -- not accurate. [...] The things that I see on twitter, not the [...] posts that I make are like Niagara Falls. [...] my account is the most interacted with in the world I believe. It is physically impossible for, you know, any one person to see all of the interactions that happen. So the only way I can really gauge the interactions is by sampling them essentially.

Q: Got you. So would it be fair to say that Isaacson made a mistake here and what thus really should say is not my tweets are like Niagara Falls, but everyone else's tweets are like Niagara Falls?

A: Not exactly. It means [...] all of what I see when I use the X app, [...] all the posts that I see and all the interactions that happen with those posts, are far to numerous [...] for any human being to consume.

Q: Okay. So when this quote talks about random turds; these are other people's random turds?

A: I mean I suppose I -- I could be guilty of a random turd too, but [...] what I'm really referring to is that the only way for me to actually get an understanding of what is happening on the system is to sample it. Like try to do -- just like in statistics, you don't -- you do -- try to do -- you sample a distribution in order to understand what's going on, but you cannot look at every single data point.

I can only gauge truth from first principled anecdotal sampling of my nazi friends, I can't look at everything alas, I'll leave community notes to deal with pesky liberals

[Which btw in other parts of the deposition he says, for a community note to be surfaced people must vote the same note as being helpful, where they previously disagreed, which doesn't sound at all like it couldn't be gamed, and doesn't at all sound like it would sometimes force "centrism" with nazis]

On a all too sadly self-aware note

Elon: I may of done more to financially impair the company than to help it.

You think?

What's the reward function for simulating me, I live a pretty dull life, what possible ROI this goes against all laws of economics 101! (The only true way to carve reality at the joints.)

Not even that! It looks like a blurry jpeg of those sources if you squint a little!

Also I’ve sort of realized that the visualization is misleading in three ways:

1. They provide an animation from shallow to deep layers to show the dots coming together, making the final result more impressive than it is (look at how many dots are in the ocean)
2. You see blobby clouds over sub-continents, with nothing to gauge error within the cloud blobs.
3. Sorta-relevant but obviously the borders as helpfully drawn for the viewer to conform to “Our” world knowledge aren’t even there at all, it’s still holding up a mirror (dare I say a parrot?) to our cognition.

I wouldn't be so confident in replacing junior devs with "AI":

1. Even if it did work without wasting time, it's unsustainable since junior devs need to acquire these skills, senior devs aren't born from the void, and will eventually graduate/retire.
2. A junior dev willing to engage their brain, would still iterate through to the correct implementation for cheaper (and potentially faster), than senior devs needing spend time reviewing bullshit implementations, and at arcane attempts of unreliable "AI"-prompting.

It's copy-pasting from stack-overflow all over again. The main consequence I see for LLM based coding assistants, is a new source of potential flaws to watch out for when doing code reviews.

He's trying to say: “There's no such thing as abuse in our church, for in our truth seeking (of which I am the arbiter) we are holy. If your pain has allowed you to divine our twisted mysteries, it is no pain, if you stray from doctrine, then repent sinner! The sin is in you, never in the church or its elders”

I'm almost certain this is an oblique reponse to some recent abuse complaint, maybe the Nonlinear stuff.

EDIT: Spelling