Garage motor special $100 off? Hooray!

Now if only I could afford a garage…

I did not think that was common practice or even a thing anyone would do at all till I was with a girl who told me she called her pussy “Patricia”

The sex was great and she (the woman not “Patricia” lol) is a wonderful person, but I was, and still am, vaguely unsettled by someone naming their genitals…

If you put an “i” before the “s” it becomes political content for real for hexbear lol

It’s clearly just saying that the surfaces on which the ends of the cylinder lie are metric spaces with distances defined using Chebyshev or Taxicab metrics based on pentagonal tilings of the parabolic plane so the ratio of a circle’s circumference to diameter is 5.

Since it’s a cylinder we assume the vertical dimension is Euclidean and voila the math checks out geometrically.

I have had the same thought before. Unfortunately conservation of energy is not enough to ensure entropy is monotonically increasing.

Say you created a tiny universe with the same average entropy of our universe and then you connected it to the edge of our universe. Energy is not conserved because you just added some, but entropy is because you didn’t create an entropy potential.

Say you had a warmer object and a colder object and you took all the heat energy from the cold object and added it to the warm object. The energy of your system was conserved, but its entropy decreased, violating the second law.

You can use violations of the second law to violate the other laws because entropy naturally wants to increase due to probability (which cannot be violated without destroying math and logic etc.).

In the scenario above, if you put some fluid between the two objects you could harness convection via a turbine to harvest energy. Even though your action of moving energy around didn’t create or destroy energy, it created a sort of entropic potential energy. Kind of like how teleporting an object to a higher elevation doesn’t really increase any energy in the universe since all mass and kinetic energy were conserved, but you’ve now increased the potential energy of the object which would become kinetic energy as the object falls back down. You could then harvest infinite energy if you repeated the cycle.

In order for one to move energy around via magic without violating entropy, one has to increase the entropy of the universe by at least the same amount it would take to move that energy without magic.

The solution I thought of was just that magic accelerates the expansion of the universe. Technically this still allows for some “impossible” stuff locally, like a perpetual motion machine or free energy generator that will eventually die but on the timescale of human lives seem infinite.

Magic would get weaker with use over time as the universe nears it’s equilibrium temperature, and you would be shortening the lifespan of the universe every time magic is used. But even if you used it excessively, you probably wouldn’t be shortening the lifespan of the universe by very much unless you were using magic to like move black holes around or rearrange galactic clusters.

That still is a violation of entropy because you’ve increased the “order” of energy in the universe as a whole, which is not possible.

If you can violate entropy, one can create a more than perfect Carnot Engine (or in general just a heat engine with efficiency greater than 1) which would allow you to generate an infinite amount of energy in the form of mechanical motion.

Unless in creating/gaining “mana” one is accelerating the entropic decay of the universe as a whole equal to or greater than the amount of entropy reversed locally (eg spells must produce heat and be inefficient at converting mana energy into work), magic would violate thermodynamics and allow for infinite energy creation.

Fuck the square cube law. If there is any magic that can freeze things / make things cold, the second law of thermodynamics is void, and by extension the other two are as well.

Perpetual motion machines? Hell yeah. Infinite energy? Hell yeah. Being able to create negative energy by decreasing entropy thus being able to create antigravity and simulate negative mass? Hell yeah

Be born rich, pay others to go through

Hate those bandits, and that general area with all of them; their blades are good at killing demons tho

Valid point, though I’m surprised that cyc was used for non-AI purposes since, in my very very limited knowledge of the project, I thought the whole thing was based around the ability to reason and infer from an encyclopedic data set.

Regardless, I suppose the original topic of this discussion is heading towards a prescriptivist vs descriptivist debate:

Should the term Artificial Intelligence have the more literal meaning it held when it first was discussed, like by Turing or in the sci-fi of Isaac Asimov?

OR

Should society’s use of the term in reference to advances in problem solving tech in general or specifically its most prevalent use in reference to any neural network or learning algorithm in general be the definition of Artificial Intelligence?

Should we shift our definition of a term based on how it is used to match popular use regardless of its original intended meaning or should we try to keep the meaning of the phrase specific/direct/literal and fight the natural shift in language?

Personally, I prefer the latter because I think keeping the meaning as close to literal as possible increases the clarity of the words and because the term AI is now thrown about so often these days as a buzzword for clicks or money, typically by people pushing lies about the capabilities or functionality of the systems they’re referring to as AI.

The lumping together of models trained by scientists to solve novel problems and the models that are using the energy of a small country to plagiarize artwork also is not something I view fondly as I’ve seen people assume the two are one in the same despite the fact one has redeeming qualities and the other is mostly bullshit.

However, it seems that many others are fine with or in support of a descriptivist definition where words have the meaning they are used for even if that meaning goes beyond their original intent or definitions.

To each their own I suppose. These preferences are opinions so there really isn’t an objectively right or wrong answer for this debate

The term “artificial intelligence” is supposed to refer to a computer simulating the actions/behavior of a human.

LLMs can mimic human communication and therefore fits the AI definition.

Generative AI for images is a much looser fit but it still fulfills a purpose that was until recently something most or thought only humans could do, so some people think it counts as AI

However some of the earliest AI’s in computer programs were just NPCs in video games, looong before deep learning became a widespread thing.

Enemies in video games (typically referring to the algorithms used for their pathfinding) are AI whether they use neural networks or not.

Deep learning neural networks are predictive mathematic models that can be tuned from data like in linear regression. This, in itself, is not AI.

Transformers are a special structure that can be implemented in a neural network to attenuate certain inputs. (This is how ChatGPT can act like it has object permanence or any sort of memory when it doesn’t) Again, this kind of predictive model is not AI any more than using Simpson’s Rule to calculate a missing coordinate in a dataset would be AI.

Neural networks can be used to mimic human actions, and when they do, that fits the definition. But the techniques and math behind the models is not AI.

The only people who refer to non-AI things as AI are people who don’t know what they’re talking about, or people who are using it as a buzzword for financial gain (in the case of most corporate executives and tech-bros it is both)

Well the svg file itself wouldn’t be, but whatever tries to render the image might think the file is infinite since it’d loop around forever. Come to think of it, I’d imaging there are probably safeguards in place to prevent svg files like this hypothetical one from being opened because they’d run as an infinite loop

Wait, is it possible to create a real infinite droste effect with vector graphics since they aren’t limited by resolution?

As long as you can do recursion in the xml it should be possible to make an svg that’s “infinitely” recursive yes?

(I have no experience on this topic)

Already made up my mind and got a rotring 600. Plan to use it till the brass erodes

I recently had to install windows for a research project and the fact the “latest version” i downloaded moments before needed to update while installing and then again needed to update twice after it was installed pissed me off way more than it should.

Also gotta love that my laptop can go 5+hrs on a charge with arch and xfce but lasts less than 2hrs on windows.

“Rolly. Polly. Pudding.”

My siblings and I will quote this scene in our best imitation of that rat’s voice randomly and no one knows what we’re talking about lol

Damn I miss watching movies with my sisters

If it wasn’t clear, I’m well aware of the unlikelihood of the situation. But what’s the harm in believing such? I mean it’s not like either of them is going to come back from the dead and say: “Actually, we argued about the internal weight distribution from astronaut motion, how it would effect the natural frequency of the capsule, and if that effect would be significant enough to need accounting for, not racism.”

Fun fact, my grandfather was a leading engineer on the Saturn V and other aerospace projects, and according to my dad he apparently got into arguments with Von Braun. Considering the line of work and knowing some of my grandfather’s written down arguments from that time, it’s likely these arguments were more about random physics than anything else, but I like to think it was about von Braun being a Nazi piece of shit.

I do know my grandparents were very against segregation to the chagrin of their neighbors, so it’s not entirely unlikely right?

Because it’s not so secret that he’s turned on

The godskin duo from Elden Ring