Copyright law was updated in a very helpful way in the last twenty years sometime so that as soon as you post something to the internet you have copyright. If you need a citation don't hesitate to ask someone else.
So you can just say some text is copyright to you and it is?
Here is some text that is copyright to me. As you infringed my copyright, please pay my $5000 license fee for every user who has read it:
> Copyright law was updated in a very helpful way in the last twenty years sometime so that as soon as you post something to the internet you have copyright. If you need a citation don't hesitate to ask someone else.
Isn't "which one is watermarked?" a different question than "which one is better?"
"Which diamonds are shinier, the blood diamond sourced ones or the ethically sourced ones?" ... that's not the same question as "which diamonds are blood diamonds" (to employ an extreme analogy)
Concluding that no one could detect which ones were blood diamonds because they were "equally shiny" is not really correct now, is it?
That's true, but you don't typically explain what you're testing in this sort of (presumably) randomised trial.
And the Daring Fireball article does complain that watermarking will reduce quality. If that's what you're trying to check, "which is better?" is the right question.
I have, and I still do this occasionally. I don’t believe the plant on my desk (I don’t have a rubber duck) is intelligent. I don’t need it to be intelligent, either.
I also do it with a LLM every now and then and, while it’s feedback is more useful than a toy’s, it does not need to be intelligent either.
Even intelligent people have demonstrated they are not immune to the damaging effects of AI sycophancy. The most recent example that comes to mind is Hank Green.
What's gonna be a real trip, is when you can tell which LLM produced it by the subtle pattern recognition you'll have developed to catch the watermarks
I do really appreciate tranquil posts about immersing oneself in actual life, like this one. But as a long-term meditator I have a duty to inform everyone that doing something is not meditation.
I never know what to respond to people when talking about meditation and they mention something like running/playing guitar/reading/etc is their meditation. I don't want to diminish their experience or sound like a contrarian but also know that
> doing something is not meditation.
so usually those conversations end with a "hm yes that's nice too"
So prayer beads aren't meditation? Indian traditionalists are out. Walking isn't, so zen is out. Chanting isn't, so.i guess all bhuddism is pretty much not ok. Maybe there is no true meditation.
It is ok to be focused and mindful with different aids. Always has been. There are self focused (mindful) and also self-abnegating traditions, and all count.
No harm to.me if others have a different way. If music, or chants, or gardening, have at it.
I am not saying that it's harmful I just find it hard to explain or relate my experience of sitting meditation, having only "internal aids" (the breath, the body, or thoughts themselves) rather than external aids or activities like running. I also know what the flow state feels like when doing sports, playing music, drawing, etc, but to me that experience is something very different than just sitting. That difference is what I find difficult to convey.
All the things you describe can be meditative after one has experienced a meaningful glimpse. But the only way to initially get such a meaningful glimpse is through seated meditation.
There's this very annoying thing where meditation experts try to dumb it down until they're basically describing a state of not thinking about stuff, and then someone else goes "oh cool yeah I don't think about stuff when I run", and the experts immediately go "but not like that!"
I wish that meditation experts would either dumb things down better or not try at all.
Is meditation so rigidly defined? It would seem to me that a certain kind of activity done with a certain kind of mindset could be deeply meditative. Disclaimer: I am not a meditator.
Yes, classically the Point of meditation is to enter into absorption via gathering-poise [not a common term but one I have begun using as of late as a sense-for-sense translation of samadhi]. Unfabricated reality is not accessible through doing things.
As far as I understand, there are numerous different kinds of meditation, even within just single traditions. Different kinds with different goals and techniques.
I’d be careful about talking about “the point” of meditation.
it's The Economist. What used to be a stellar publication is not any longer, since they are superfluously economical on both details and calories-required-to-comprehend an article.
I mean, it's a < 1000 word article about AI, in the "business" section of a current affairs magazine, of all places. You really shouldn't be expecting a deep dive.
The economist has many deep dives on AI, including fascinating interviews with the likes of Amodei, Musk, and others. A recent discussion focused on how China is approaching AI.
There are many ways to be wrong, but only a few ways to be right.
LLMs need to optimize for short-term objectives as the currently do, AND ethics-aligned outcomes.
Mechanically, the EAOS ethics-aligned outcome score should be what we rank otherwise-satisfactory outcomes by. And anything below a particular threshold should be rejexted outright.
