Unrelated, but I feel like the majority is going about the creation of AI sort of wrong. Neural models are great, but they aren't really native to the way computer hardware works. Very inefficient.
I wonder if we could use a more streamlined approach that still incorporates NNs to a limited extent, but augments their abilities with tools native to the hardware. Maybe some different way to categorize and store data, too, one that isn't so bloated like our current models. After all, brains have structures already built into them from the genetic code of the organism. There are tools there so the brain doesn't have to start from scratch. Maybe we could do the same for AI. Maybe in a way that allows the AI to actually be an AI and not a static model that is queried and then remains idle until the next query.
i’d love to be able to be a flying ghost whenever and explore dangerous areas like faulty caves, middle of wild forests and tall mountains because being able to explore anywhere sounds so cool because of what might be out there
calling others lazy is lazy because you're not taking the time to consider that they might have reasons to not function ideally and instead resort to easy, bias-based assumptions /general
Could we use bracelets/bands/sleeves that read muscle impulses as another way to do finger tracking in VR? Wondering how prosthetic technology has applications here. And vice-versa.
Everything's happening right now. Like, it always feels like the past is like a real thing and other people operate at a different time, but every second is the same second for everyone. Its so obvious, but when I started to think about it its so crazy.
I find it funny how commercials for two of the most socially accepted drugs - those being caffeine and alcohol - both have people in those commercials seeming very energetic, attractive, outgoing, etc. This is despite the fact that both drugs have opposite effects; the former being a stimulant (excites neural responses), while the latter is a depressant (inhibits neural responses)[1]
further clarification: this is simply referring to how the neural pathways are generally affected by each drug, hence why they affect everyone differently! Because everyone has different sets of neural patterns and connections that interact in different ways, each with their own baseline levels of excitation/inhibition ↩︎
You’re right, I never saw it like that until you pointed it out haha.
Almost reminds me of those pharmaceutical ads that show a family talking a walk in the park or a guy playing with their dog while a narrator rapidly describes dozens of side effects.
If a park charges an entry fee is that the same type of financial incentive to pickpockets as paying for a better location in games like Lethal company to get better loot?
If "are" is normally for multiple and "is" for singular is the correct use of the they pronoun like this?
They are a group
He is a boy / man
She is a girl / woman
They is a enby / non-binary
It feels a bit wierd to say, which is for most things i have not gotten used to (i mostly use names to refere to other people, not very often pronouns), but from my very basic understanding of language this seems to follow the established rules?
It does however lead to a bit of a problem in Dutch, because of the following:
Ze zijn een groep
Hij is een jongen / man
Ze is een meisje / vrouw
Ze is een enby / niet-binair
As English "they" (multiple) translates to "ze" (multiple) in Dutch, but English "she" (feminin singular) also translates to "ze" (feminin singular) in Dutch.
This means that (with somewhat literal translation) the word for she and enby in Dutch is the same word. Further more the word would be used in the same context, so you cant even tell the difference from (limited) context or sentence structure.
I may need to do a bit of research, but that is for tomorrow, now it is time to eep, good night o/
That does make sense now that you mention it, but it sounds so alien... though "singular they" sounded alien to me for a while as-well when i started using it.
Mabie one of the many linguistics fanatics on the forum will enlighten us if this makes sense?
I think the "singular they" is English specific solution. Mabie the best solution is for dutch is entirely different. Swedish added a 3rd pronoun by mixing the male and female words;
Weirdly enough, i thought it was a faar more elegant solution than "singular they", but I've struggled to property adopt it compared to "singular they". It still sounds wierd and forced, and often accidentally sounds like the gendered versions when said quickly.
So it's most useful in text, and often used in instructions, laws, and scientific reports. This makes it oddly have the opposite problem to "singular they"; which i find easily to use in speech to entirely replace gendered pronouns but a little bit ambiguous in text.
... why am i yapping about this i hate linguistics...
o0(.... How do they get the ball in the ramune bottle?????)