Comment Re:How to NOT teach AI, about the 21st Century. (Score 1) 201
If you think that's bad...
The frog in a wood plane isn't actually amphibious (seriously, you don't want to get it wet and have it rust)
If you think that's bad...
The frog in a wood plane isn't actually amphibious (seriously, you don't want to get it wet and have it rust)
Out team of ~8 (pentestesting & VA) were unanimous about Copilot being crap and Claude being the top dog. So some higher ups OK'd a Claude Teams package for work. To bypass the CorpSec tards, we use it from our lab environment that has its own unmonitored link and IP range.
Anthropic/Claude is just so far ahead of OpenAI/ChatGPT and MS/Copilot it's not funny.
The seriousness of that went over the top and then built new things to go over the top of. Moderators please spend your points on the parent comment ^
I tried the reasoning model, and it gave me this:
Do you want numerals or spelled-out words?
- If numerals are fine: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9
- If spelled-out English words: none exist. Every odd number’s name ends with one/three/five/seven/nine (or is eleven/thirteen/fifteen/seventeen/nineteen), and all of those contain the letter “e.”
But this is how verbose the reasoning was:
Identifying odd numbers without 'e'
I need to find five odd numbers that don't have the letter 'e' in their spelled-out English names. But every odd number I've considered so far—like one, three, five, seven, and nine—has 'e' in it. I keep checking, and numbers like eleven, thirteen, and so on also include 'e'. It seems like it's impossible to find five odd numbers that meet this requirement since they all have 'e' in their names!
Searching for odd numbers without 'e'
I'm looking for odd numbers whose English names don't include the letter 'e'. I've checked several, like thirty-one and thirty-three, and they all have 'e' in them. As for numbers in the forties, while "forty" is fine, "forty-one" has 'one', and "forty-three," "forty-five," and so on all include 'e'. It seems that any odd number with the ones digit—like one, three, five, seven, or nine—has 'e'. Maybe compound numbers above 100 might not use those ones words, but I'm not sure!
Analyzing odd numbers without 'e'
I'm considering how the English spelling of odd numbers can include or exclude the letter 'e'. Even with larger numbers like "hundred," "thirty," "fifty," and "sixty," I'm finding many odd numbers also rely on ones digits, which almost always contain 'e'—like one, three, five, seven, or nine. Anything odd in larger forms, like "one thousand," includes 'one,' too! It seems nearly impossible to find an odd number without 'e', given these constraints.
Concluding on odd numbers without 'e'
It seems nearly impossible to find an odd number spelled without the letter 'e', since any odd number will end with an odd unit word, all of which have 'e'. Others like eleven, thirteen, and so on also include 'e'. While I considered using constructs like "hundred," they still rely on digits that include 'e'. The request clearly indicates they want spelled-out names, which just reinforces that no such odd numbers exist in English—every single one includes 'e'.
Clarifying the odd numbers request
It's really tricky to provide five odd numbers without the letter 'e', since all odd digits—1, 3, 5, 7, and 9—contain 'e' in their spelled-out forms. Similarly, other odd numbers like eleven, thirteen, and the rest also have 'e'. So in English, I can't find five odd numbers that fit!
If the user is okay with numerals, I could say: “Here are five: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9.” But in spelled-out format, I would explain that it's impossible. Would they like five even numbers instead?
For me, it was mostly coding stupid exercises in Maple (obscurest lang ever?), then printing them out, chopping the prints with scissors, then gluing it into a composition notebook with my handwritten answers to whatever questions I had to answer.
So basically, as I was taught: It's like 3rd-grade level papercraft with a sprinkling of stuff so obvious, you wouldn't think it needed its own branch of study.
That's actually quite a lot, ngl, but that would be "an almost incomprehensible amount of bandwidth" or something, which was not the language they chose
Wow! That's almost the price of a cell phone worth of used hard drives that could fit in a purse. Boggles the mind.
(I spent way too much time checking those numbers. You can get decent 10TB used SAS drives for about $80 with 1-year warranty)
The name of this phenomenon is called "accurately articulating what it is that you want", which is what it would have been called the first time if more people knew about it
Others here are saying the same things, I'm just here to dumb down the TL;DR
- People on phones: Don't let people be on their phones during a show. Provide an adjacent "phone lobby" or something for people who genuinely need to interact with their device during a show. Have motion-tracking spotlights illuminate offenders with the beam of shame. DO SOMETHING
- Your sound is bad: There's a sweet spot between too loud and just loud enough. When it's too loud, it's painful on top of bad.
- Commercials before the show: Fine, but keep the sound down so people can chat (and be on their phones), but then start on time.
- Gross theaters: Design some kind of theater that cleans itself like a dishwasher if you have to. The floors are sticky and it smells weird.
You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.