This can be solved when the ARC puzzle is cracked (https://arcprize.org/play) so we can automate correctness-checking like in coq but for program synthesis.
I think the interesting thing here though is the notion of `am a jealous God`.
Note: Exodus 20:5 and Similar Passages: The concept of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation" is often understood in the context of the collective nature of ancient Israelite society. It emphasizes the idea that the consequences of sin can affect subsequent generations, particularly in a communal and covenantal context. This does not necessarily mean direct punishment, but rather the natural repercussions and influence of one generation's behavior on the next.
So one interpretation is that: these people's descendants are not directly punished bust just less favorable by God given the jealous nature of God (i.e. the jealous nature to the degree that is expressed in Exodus 20:5 if we take Exodus 20:5 at face value as composed by Moses at the cultural-political time when he received the Commandments where God proclaimed that He is a jealous God)
On the other hand, regarding Ezekiel 18:20, it is a verse that is a part of a broader discussion in Ezekiel 18 that emphasizes individual responsibility when it was composed by the prophet Ezekiel ~6th century BCE, during the Babylonian exile. So once again, one good interpretation can be that due to the cultural-political background at that time, God's message to humanity (for the betterment of humanity) was in a tone where He emphasized less on His jealous aspect and more on the individualism of sins - which is interestingly very similar to the idea of karma formulated in Shakyamuni's Dharma, which was also around that time in human history.
> This does not necessarily mean direct punishment, but rather the natural repercussions and influence of one generation's behavior on the next.
This is a rationalization. If you try to interpret it honestly you can find dozen different places where god punish random people for sins of their relatives (for example "unoborn kids" in cities genocided by Old Testament Israelites either through regular war crimes or direct God's magical intervention).
And then there's the fragment that says that God will not punish a city if there's even one honest man there.
The only way to make it consistent is to ignore contradictions. And I'd say it would be easier to ignore the few ones that are against collective responsibilty (because there's far fewer of them).
> This is a rationalization. If you try to interpret it honestly
You are proceeding to not try to interpret it honestly; and thinking you are a genius for pointing out a supposed contradiction, because this hasn't been studied and researched for over 3,000 years at this point.
> for example "unoborn kids" in cities genocided by Old Testament Israelites either through regular war crimes or direct God's magical intervention
You seem to forget that Egypt, the land where they came from, was literally putting them to genocide first by ordering them to kill all male children; and any country they relocated to, would also have happily committed genocide against them if possible.
We also know from both the Bible and remaining physical evidence that the exterminated tribes were practicing horrific activities of their own. The Canaanites, for example, practiced child sacrifice to Molek, and (though not in the Bible, but from remaining historical evidence) even practiced ritual cannibalism. A command to exterminate them therefore should not be interpreted as intrinsically immoral or undeserved.
Yeah, no; you found something the church called a sin that you could not, or did not, want to overcome.
> Genociding Phillites' kids because some adult Egyptians were killing Jews is evil.
If evil is only an opinion of mind, who is to say? Russians call Ukrainians evil; Ukrainians call Russia evil; both kill the other. In your opinion, it was evil; but if you were forced between accepting a genocide against yourself on one hand, or fleeing and causing a genocide to survive, you may have different opinions.
True Innovation comes from the heart, and most mainland Chinese have lost touch of their hearts - you can even see that foreshadowed in ài the character for Love (爱/愛)。The simplified version just pretended the heart 心 is not in the center of it..
You may have step-by-step progress in China, like going from 110 to 111.
But there have never been and will never be any 0 to 1 kind of innovation in China.. maybe at most gimmicks and copying orchestrated by the Beijing State itself.
So how does astro's Starlight compare to it as of Sep 2024? I've invested a bit time to configure Starlight for a new proj but now I'm a bit tempted to switch over
Would love feedbacks from anyone who have been with both Starlight and Docusaurus; thanks!
e.g. are there anything great about Starlight that I should stick to it? SEO-wise, etc.
Why are you tempted? Personally, I like Starlight's use of web components. It is much more lightweight and since it is based on Astro, you can use whatever framework you want / need.
I think the pop-sci writer simply didn’t choose a good wording - the original paper is simply about how the (consciousness-orchestrated?) synchronized activities of millions of neurons may be linked to “cylindrical cavity formed by a myelin sheath can facilitate spontaneous photon emission from the vibrational modes and generate a significant number of entangled photon pairs”.
When we don’t have a way to define consciousness and its (let’s called it) orchestration, the notion of “communication” is none-sensible. It’s like if we look at Shor’s algorithm, its BQP efficiency isn’t really due to any “communication” among the q-bits - but more as a kind of “probabilities collapsing” as they go through these quantum gates.
Td;dr I think the phys.org writer is just trying to make it sound more exciting by unfortunately using a miss-leading word
Realistically, it feels like the actual utility of an open-source project is based on:
1. it being educational: so everyone can look into its source & learn from its design pattern, etc, or build upon or borrow parts (eg to be modified) and to be used in their own projects - but the practicality of it will really depend on how decoupled and well-designed the system is
2. in favour of competition (so more possible start-ups / big corps can clone their systems/services) and as consumers we will obviously benefit from that
3. llm can access & train on its source code
I think point 3 is most interesting. And I’m also super curious how true point 2 is and to what extend
Point 1 is really cool too - esp when it is done wonderfully (Linux, React for example) but it really depends on so many levels
What he is saying is that LLM’s released into the wild to train can anonymously steal from his code to improve their own utility outside of licensing boundaries.
As a researcher of LLMs and a student of semiotics, I find this piece to be cultural-politically interesting, especially from a socio-cybernetic perspective
