I was giving you the benefit of doubt all this time, but your comments about my country confirms to me that you're misinformed. For all I hate Erdoğan and his attempts to undermine democracy, and I want to see him gone sooner or later, Turkey is as much an Islamic authoritarian state as USA is a Christian authoritarian one under the rule of Trump. There seems to be a tendency to exaggerate the realities on the ground for some reason, and I suspect this is fueled by bots.
I said going the authorian islamic way, not that you are already a califat. Sorry for the missunderstanding, I am aware that turkey is all in all still quite democratic and secular and we seem to both not like the direction Erdogan is heading. My point was, Erdogans influence over the SNA is not comforting me.
Why are you relating authoritarianism with "Islamic way" or even the Caliphates? I've never seen anyone make this claim before, which is, to be honest, quite absurd.
Edit: Also your linked article no longer reflects the current stance of Russia.
That link I gave is propaganda BS. It claims the syrian army gave the terrorists( SDF) control over the new areas, while in reality they fought with US support against iranian and syrian regime militias. So that iran could not send support without fighting their way through it, maybe a turning point in this war.
It was just to illustrate that Erdogans goals are not peace, after Assad is gone.
The sentence "I said going the authorian islamic way,", implies that there is an "authoritarian Islamic" way. What is that? Because it sounds like you're implying that the religion has intrinsic authoritarian aspects to it.
The issue is that in the West people hear one of Erdogan's pep-talk speeches against Israel on CNN and assume that he means everything.
They don't know that Turkey has been delivering oil to Israel all the time and that Israel is in favor of the current events in Syria.
If all of Turkey, the U.S. and Israel support the Syrian rebels, we may assume that the goal is to install a U.S. friendly government (perhaps supervised by Turkey) and have more buffer states against Iran.
You might be an exception, an outlier, like many on HN, in regards to this effect. What applies to most people is more probable not to apply to me or you because we're self selected here, a bubble. This is given you're not either bluffing or constructed an illusory belief.
My reasoning for disbelieving that valuing rhyming advice is a human adaptation from experiencing high quality rhyming advice stands on its own, separate from my reasoning for personally devaluing rhyming advice.
If they said that part of the reason that rhyming advice is sticky is people mistakenly believe that more effort went it to, that seems right.
You can't, but I wager a student excited to doing a review but with a suboptimal method, will do better than a student who dreads the review with the optimal method.
Current algorithms/UI feel like punishment for over-learning, as if it was a suspicious thing that carried great responsibility to open a book and read a page without fully committing to forever maintaining reviews on everything you happened to come across. There should be no punishment and only reward.
I haven't made any assumptions about your goals. I simply reminded you that memories kind of have "expiry dates", so that review dates are necessary. The backlog you mentioned is the memories you're about to forget if not "refreshed" in time. If you just want to practice whenever you feel like it, there are tons of apps that use a simple Leitner box, but you may soon find that it becomes a burden to review your cards if you add an important amount of them. Anki already has ways to do what you want, while still working according to your memory patterns, such as using filtered decks and lowering desired retention.
I already pointed out twice that Anki doesn't work for me, and your response is basically still 'you're holding it wrong'. I know of all the things you mentioned, and like I said, they didn't work for me, which is why I was looking for recommendations (which other posters have provided).
The point is that you're looking for something that accounts for your memory patterns while reviewing things haphazardly, which goes against the former. It doesn't exist. I wonder why you just don't use traditional study methods at this point. If you dread the backlog (and you shouldn't if you have well formatted cards, which may be why it didn't work for you) you will dread the alternative even more.
> I wonder why you just don't use traditional study methods at this point.
Because I'm not a student. Why is it so hard to accept that I know what I want and am just looking for recommendations that do that? If they don't exist, so be it. The point of my question was to find out what exists, not to get a lecture on what I should want.
In all honesty, I believe the reverse is true. Our technology seems modeled after humans and the environment we inhabit. Airplanes being glorified birds, wheels being glorified feet, computers being glorified brains or neural networks...well.
I did. They still don't have anything in common other than being means to locomotion across the ground. Unlike, f.e. cameras that are directly inspired by the eye, airplane wings being directly inspired by bird wings. Wheels are not directly inspired by anything biological, they are probably invented from log-bearings for easier dragging of heavy things across ground.
I am Muslim and the universe is what I identify God with. It seems "natural" to me and what I feel is actually being conveyed. Now I wonder how other adherents of world religions actually see God.
> And while LLMs are certainly an exciting new technology, it's not at all clear that they're really more than a glorified autocorrect.
Are we sure things like biology, or heck, even the universe as a whole and its parts, aren't "glorified x thing"? Can't we apply this argument to just about anything?
I feel like comparing it to biological systems glances over like half the points the parent makes. Also of course it's a sophisticated autocorrect, there's no system for agency, which is what we also desire from a proper AGI.
I wanted to put the focus on the overused "glorified x thing" sentence, which to me seems to be applicable to just about anything. I didn't want to liken/compare AI to biological systems per se.
You and me think we are but we can't be sure, and many before us have raised a doubt.
As for the prompt(s), to use such a limiting term, they could as well come from a self-reinforcing loop that starts when we're born and is influenced by external stimuli.
LLMs as part of a bigger system that keeps prompting itself, perhaps like our internal conscious thought processes, sounds a lot more like something that might be headed towards AGI. But LLMs on their own aren't it.
I have a theory (with no data to back it up; would be curious to get people's thoughts) that people with a religious or spiritual world-view, who believe that there is such thing as a soul, and that the mind is more than just a collection of neurons in the brain, are much less inclined to think that "AI" will ever reach a sort of singularity or true "human-like" intelligence. And likewise, those who are more atheist/agnostic, or inclined to believe that human consciousness is nothing more than the patterns of neurons firing in response to various stimuli, are more convinced that a human-like machine/programmed intelligence is not only possible, but inevitable given enough resources.
I could be wildly off base, but seeing many of the (often heated) arguments made about what AI is or isn't or should or could be, it makes me wonder.
As it happens, I am indeed Christian. But I see the soul as the software that runs on the hardware of our brain (although those aren't as neatly separated in our brain as they are in computers), and I suspect that it should be possible to simulate it in theory. I just think we're nowhere near that. We still don't agree on what the many aspects of intelligence are and how they work together to form the human mind. And then there's consciousness; we have no clue what it is. Maybe it's emergent? Maybe it's illusion? Or is it something real? I don't think we'll be able to create a truly human-like intelligence until we figure that one out.
Although we're certainly making a lot of progress on other aspects of intelligence.
And then there's all the talk of a singularity in innovation or progress that to me betrays a lack of understanding of what the word singularity means, and a lack of understanding of the limits of knowledge and progress.
It seems to me that on one extreme there are people easily anthropomorphising advanced computing and on the other extreme there are people trivializing it with sentences like "glorified x thing". This time around it's "glorified autocorrect" and its derivations. It's always something that glorifies another artificial thing, and I suspect that if and when we will have recreated the human brain, or heck, another human, it will still be a "glorified x thing".
As 0x0203 said, maybe it is to be ascribed to the religious substrate that takes offence at anything that arrogantly tries to resemble the living creatures made by God, or God himself.
