Kogasa

U good?

Stokes’ theorem. Almost the same thing as the high school one. It generalizes the fundamental theorem of calculus to arbitrary smooth manifolds. In the case that M is the interval [a, x] and ω is the differential 1-form f(t)dt on M, one has dω = f’(t)dt and ∂M is the oriented tuple {+x, -a}. Integrating f(t)dt over a finite set of oriented points is the same as evaluating at each point and summing, with negatively-oriented points getting a negative sign. Then Stokes’ theorem as written says that f(x) - f(a) = integral from a to x of f’(t) dt.

Your first two paragraphs seem to rail against a philosophical conclusion made by the authors by virtue of carrying out the Turing test. Something like “this is evidence of machine consciousness” for example. I don’t really get the impression that any such claim was made, or that more education in epistemology would have changed anything.

In a world where GPT4 exists, the question of whether one person can be fooled by one chatbot in one conversation is long since uninteresting. The question of whether specific models can achieve statistically significant success is maybe a bit more compelling, not because it’s some kind of breakthrough but because it makes a generalized claim.

Re: your edit, Turing explicitly puts forth the imitation game scenario as a practicable proxy for the question of machine intelligence, “can machines think?”. He directly argues that this scenario is indeed a reasonable proxy for that question. His argument, as he admits, is not a strongly held conviction or rigorous argument, but “recitations tending to produce belief,” insofar as they are hard to rebut, or their rebuttals tend to be flawed. The whole paper was to poke at the apparent differences between (a futuristic) machine intelligence and human intelligence. In this way, the Turing test is indeed a measure of intelligence. It’s not to say that a machine passing the test is somehow in possession of a human-like mind or has reached a significant milestone of intelligence.

https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238

I don’t think the methodology is the issue with this one. 500 people can absolutely be a legitimate sample size. Under basic assumptions about the sample being representative and the effect size being sufficiently large you do not need more than a couple hundred participants to make statistically significant observations. 54% being close to 50% doesn’t mean the result is inconclusive. With an ideal sample it means people couldn’t reliably differentiate the human from the bot, which is presumably what the researchers believed is of interest.

Just wait til you find the 1-1/2" screws

Mesa is usually pretty quick to update, it’s just that stable distros won’t update mesa all that quickly. I assume most of them have some way to install a newer mesa from a community repo or something.

Docker is lighter and easier to manage than a VM. I run a collection of services as docker compose services inside a NixOS host VM. It’s easy to start, stop, monitor, update etc. even from a different computer (via ssh or docker contexts). It’s great.

deleted by creator

It’s just as easy to run in a Docker container and I would recommend this anyway.

It’s what happens when content is url encoded and not decoded again later. It’s easy to do by accident because you can’t tell if a string is already url encoded in any general way, so the processes responsible for sending and receiving need to agree on how/when to encode and decode (i.e. they both have the power to break it for the other)

I do not know what that means

If only we were still having the conversation.

That’s… not the point either. The point is that “reporting false positives isn’t a bad thing” is only true up to a point. The discussion is then “is this before or after that point.” Which, given the context of the bug, isn’t really a given. But I don’t want to have that discussion with you anymore because you’re annoying.

“What if the boy who cried wolf got lucky and didn’t get eaten in the end”? Seems to have missed the point of the parable a bit.

I didn’t say the CVE was valid. I explained why it was a mistake. I didn’t say “disclosing security bugs” is, in general, a bad thing, I said raising undue alarm about a specific class of bugs is bad. It’s not a matter of “less or more information,” because as I said, a CVE is not a bug report. It is not simply “acknowledgment of information.” If you think my argument has no merit and there is no reason why “more information” could be worse, you’re free to talk to someone who gives a shit.

Uh, no. But thanks for guessing. It’s frivolous because it violates several principles of responsible disclosure. Yes, the scope of impact is relevant; the availability of methods of remediation is relevant; and the development/patch lifecycle is relevant. The feature being off-by-default and labeled experimental are indirect references to the scope of impact and availability of remediation, and the latter is an indirect reference to the state of development lifecycle. Per the developer(s)’ words, this is a bug that had limited risk and was scheduled to be fixed as part of the normal development schedule. Escalating every such bug, of which the vast majority go without a CVE, would quickly drown out notices that people actually care about. A CVE is not a bug report.

It’s not worthy of a CVE and whether it applies to me is irrelevant. I didn’t say a CVE is a black mark. Frivolous reporting of CVEs damages trust in the usefulness of the system in identifying critical vulnerabilities. This is a known issue related to resumé padding by newcomers to the cybersecurity industry.

To a point. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

Frivolous CVEs aren’t a good thing for security. This bug was a possible DOS (not e.g. a privilege escalation) in a disabled-by-default experimental feature. It wasn’t a security issue and should have been fixed with a patch instead of raising a false alarm and damaging trust.

Perhaps if you used more than two fingers on desktop