I’m reminded of the whole “I have been a good Bing” exchange. (apologies for the link to twitter, it’s the only place I know of that has the full exchange: https://x.com/MovingToTheSun/status/1625156575202537474 )

I’m a little disappointed this wasn’t a link to the film strip we saw in high school. The cop drawling “Now this here is Rolle’s theorem…” is classic.

Edit: https://vimeo.com/101691769

*Xerox PARC. It’s an acronym for Palo Alto Research Center.

Also crabs. I mean, their eyes are often on stalks and more mobile than mammalian eyes, and they’re compound, so they have a very wide field of view, but they’re still often basically in front, and they do apparently provide depth cues for hunting thanks to this.

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/38/31/6933

It also occurred to me to look up about dragonflies, and it seems they mostly hunt dorsally (which is a pretty viable option if you’re flying). BUT I found this article about Damselflies, which notes that they rely on binocular overlap and line up their prey in front of them. Which is pretty cool.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219316641

Relative to a second currency, as a derivative on the foreign exchange market.

If you haven’t already, check out Ludwig.

Agreed.

I mean, arguably this was done years ago with Return to Zork, Zork: Nemesis, and Zork: Grand Inquisitor. They shared a bit of the humor of the originals, but they were still pretty different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nigRT2KmCE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KWotO76SuXE

Good questions. I don’t know, and I can no longer try to find out, as the mods have now removed the comment. (Sorry for the double-post–I got briefly confused about which comment you were referring to and deleted my first post, then realized I’d been frazzled and the post in question really was deleted by the mods.)

deleted by creator

Basically this: https://www.psychdb.com/cognitive-testing/clock-drawing-test

The image looks rather a lot like the “Buddy Christ” from Dogma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buddy_christ.jpg

(For math people: this can be modeled as a hypergeometric distribution with N=48, K=13, n=8, k=0.)

I suspect most people haven’t heard these terms. But they should have studied basic combinatorics in high school, and that’s all it really is. You had a pool of 48 people from whom to choose 8, but you happened to choose them from the specific pool of 35 not up for reelection. So the likelihood of that happening randomly is just 35 choose 8 / 48 choose 8, which is indeed 6.2%.

I made a neural net from scratch with my own neural net library and trained it on generating the next move in a game of Go, based on thousands of games from an online Go forum.

It never even got close to learning the rules.

In retrospect, “thousands of games” was nowhere near enough training data for such a complex task, and if we had had enough training data, we never could have processed all of it, since all we were using was a ca. 2004 laptop machine with no GPU. So we just really overreached with that project. But still, it was a really pathetic showing.

Edit: I switched from “I” to “we” here because I was working with a classmate, but we did use my code. She did a lot of the heavy lifting in getting the games parsed into a form where the network could train on it, though.

This suggests a whole new kind of D&D alignment chart.

Maybe punished for incitement, on the grounds that it was “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”? Tough to prove in court but as a bystander I’m frustratingly unsurprised the one thing followed the other.

Don’t forget that he paid for and directed a music video specifically to make fun of Kapoor. It’s called “Bean Boy.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8XOQ6DbXXOo

It’s because, for the most part, it doesn’t actually have access to the text itself. Before the data gets to the “thinking” part of the network, the words and letters have been stripped out and replaced with vectors. The vectors capture a lot of aspects of the meaning of words, but not much of their actual text structure.