[0] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/object.html#Strict_... [1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/compatible_type.htm...

    /* mrb_gc_protect() leaves the object in the arena */
    MRB_API void mrb_gc_protect(mrb_state *mrb, mrb_value obj);
    /* mrb_gc_register() keeps the object from GC. */
    MRB_API void mrb_gc_register(mrb_state *mrb, mrb_value obj);
    /* mrb_gc_unregister() removes the object from GC root. */
    MRB_API void mrb_gc_unregister(mrb_state *mrb, mrb_value obj);

> Why the target audience of the ruby, probably primary web developers, whould do that?

In my experience, it's mostly web developers who care about this in the first place.

Strict aliasing in C roughly means that if you initialize memory as a particular type, you can only access it as that type or one of a list of aliasable types look like char. Rust has no such restriction, and has no concept of strict aliasing like this. In Rust, "type aliasing" is allowed, so long as you respect size, alignment, and representability rules.

Aliasing safety in Rust roughly means that you can not have an exclusive reference to an object if any other reference is active for that reference (reality is a little bit more involved than that, but not a lot). C has no such rule.

It's very unfortunate that such similar names were given to these different concepts.

I'm not a fan of Baker for many reasons, but "how did she even get that role?" always pings my shithead radar, and isn't a question I hear for incompetent male CEOs, who are assumed to be just incompetent, while the women are assumed to be incompetent infiltrators who were hired on the basis of their sex.

> Also, I think there is a very high chance that given an existing LLM architecture there exists a set of weights that would manifest a true intelligence immediately upon instantiation (with anterograde amnesia).

I don't see why that would be the case at all, and I regularly use the latest and most expensive LLMs and am aware enough of how they work to implement them on the simplest level myself, so it's not just me being uninformed or ignorant.

"We don't really know how human consciousness works, but the LLM resembles things we associate with thought, therefore it is thought."

I think most people would agree that the functioning of an LLM resembles human thought, but I think most people, even the ones who think that LLMs can think, would agree that LLMs don't think in the exact same way that a human brain does. At best, you can argue that whatever they are doing could be classified as "thought" because we barely have a good definition for the word in the first place.

There's clearly more going on in the human mind than just token prediction.

Nobody is. What people are doing is claiming that "predicting the next thing" does not define the entirety of human thinking, and something that is ONLY predicting the next thing is not, fundamentally, thinking.