Creationism is about creation. I’m talking about intelligent life spreading through a galaxy and manipulating it over the course of billions of years. Is an iphone creationism?
Creationism is LITERALLY the belief that the universe and was created by a supernatural and divine being(s). Supposition that intelligent life may have developed the technology to modify things at a galaxy scale in no way implies a divine being.
TLDR -- We currently do not automatically load stored procedures as context for in context learning/prompting but it is on the roadmap.
Additional color: Once you configure a connection to a DB, you can trigger a 'scan' of the DB through the API which detects various tables/columns, identifies low cardinality (categorical) columns and their values and also loads in VIEWS stored on tables. In our default NL2SQL agent, these are then used together with 'verified' NL2SQL pairs and with other metadata you can manually add to generate the SQL.
We are looking to automatically add context from Stored procedures and other sources like dbt and various data dictionaries as well.
The samples included in the press release are quite impressive to my ears, but the other samples (especially from AudioGen) have a hint of artificially.
As usual the music is quite repetitive, but I'm looking forward to tools that simplify changing the prompt whilst it generates over a window. I can only imagine the consequences for royalty free music.
Edit: the "Text-to-music generation with diffusion-based EnCodec" samples are quite impressive.
I enjoyed this. I'd like to see some deeper examination about becoming your own product, and living with an audience in your mind. Prostitution where the currency is Likes.
Yeah, but it means they're far more likely to be correct. Iconoclast / Galileo gambit outliers are near nil.
We collectively know more about everything every year, science has generally given us a self-correcting living corpus.
The argument you're making is the same made by anti-intellectuals: don't trust institutional knowledge and consensus because it's been wrong in the past, look at mistake X. It's something like a systemic ad hominem.
They are not near nil. Every idea ever conceived has either been rejected or altered to match new observations.
That means that most ideas will end up being wrong in some way. The smoking-gun laws of nature are few and far between.
If you consider what % of ideas throughout history were plain wrong, it’s hard to believe that we have finally figured it all out and the consensus finally reflects reality most of the time.
We're talking about wrong as in Galileo, as in radically upending, not modifications or normal gradients of wrongness. Knowledge is generally accretive, but we pay a lot of emotional and categorical attention to perspectives that break dogma. The vast majority absolutely do not, and they fade innumerably into the background of the industry they support.
It's easy (and trite) to cite the extremely limited pool of successful dogma-contrarians over time. Try making a list of the failed contrarians, and then another of all the knowledge (and its contributors) that didn't need fundamental reconsideration at some point in modernity.
The critical point is that contrarians are always necessary for science. If we always ignored dissenters then we would never make any progress. Even if most are wrong, contrarians are essential.
Thus deferring to the ‘consensus’ and implicitly ignoring contrarian views stops science in its tracks.
I don’t understand what you mean in your first paragraph, and I don’t support dogmatic positions so I’m not sure why you refer to ‘dogma-contarians.’ Contrarians are usually anti-dogmatic.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” Unreasonable contrarians are generally annoying but essential.
The fallacy is assuming that consensus = probably true.
This is only correct when we have good evidence and good methods. That is why consensus breaks (like heliocentrism) occur during technological changes (development of telescope).
The critical point the parent is missing is that many fields have terrible data and terrible methods so the ‘consensus’ isn’t likely to be true (eg smoking is good for the nerves, butter is bad for you, the globe is too big for humans to cause changes)
It takes a lot of intellectual integrity to admit that many disciplines are not generating anything resembling ‘truth’. It’s easier to ignore and say: but the consensus is the best we have! Sometimes the heterodox view is the best.
Recently tried Wordpress again, thinking maybe it has matured.
Terrible idea, terrible platform. For example, you want metadata on posts, you install ACF. You want to filter on that metadata, good luck if it's over a couple filters simultaneously, the SQL queries will time out. You're guaranteed to need different tweaks that get dumped into a scripts file, feels like patterns from 20 years ago. There are some people trying to untangle the Wordpress trash pile by refactoring and bolting Laravel onto it[1], but every layer is just a nightmare; the authors of different parts can barely assess why things randomly break.
You might find WP appealing for the plugin ecosystem, but the plugins are completely random in implementation, so you're likely to get a bloated scramble of CSS and JS pushed to your users.
I moved to Directus and Astro, but I would probably use a Laravel-based CMS like October or Statamic for more generalized PHP deployment.
I enjoy listening to Attia talk about his longevity research. He's why I finally started doing IF, and someone I looked to when I moved from power lifting (can't do it forever lol) to a more longevity based exercise program.
Then I randomly got really into jiu-jitsu because why not.
