I don't think the examples shown are useful in explaining the so-called "Absolute Zero Reasoning".

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.

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.

I guess I’m just tempted because Docusaurus looks really nice

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.

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

computationally, what appears as the experience of “consciousness” is thus Anattā (not-self)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anattā

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

my experience working with DAGs programmatically (ie not as an abstraction (like in React) but actually handling the edges&nodes of a graph-based abstraction in code) is that it looks nice theoretically but in practice top-down (conceptual) approach like this often tends to over-complicate things

would love to see some real-world examples where an actual dev team, etc, find values in graph-theortical-based abstractions like this

So Phind's main mission is to overtake Google right? ;)

will there be api access soon?

also: will it be open-source at some point? thanks

real question though: can transiting into a system involving less humans in power (and more decentralised) actually fix politics? Or will things be the same (in terms of lobbying, etc)?

how can we design better systems for governance?

nothing is free !

everything that made up of you had always been here since the beginning :)

Actually this is why LSD is so important - it helps you better recognise the voices repeating apple, pear, banana in your everyday life

we are all always about to die:

1. everyday billions of your cells die and are dying

2. death is the single most real/important matter in life, and about to or not really only depends on how relativistic you want to be

3. can always swiftly get real because you never know when your last day is

Even when we don't think we're pulling the thread, we often are. The only way is to constantly remind yourself of an imaginary/unforeseeable global maximum that you can work hard to acheive..

But even then that could just be another local maximum that I've tricked myself into thinking that's all there is. But if you aim too high, it's exhausting and may have the adverse effects (e.g. you end up failing while also missing out your local maximum) - and so you would want to hang more into the foreseeable local maximum (which may not be too bad a thing to be honest, esp when you are all burnt out).

This is truly the hardest problem in life.

.. and then here is the strange question: is trying to achieve global maxmium and immersing yourself in work and becoming a workaholic (so more get done while time passes quicker) the actual pulling of the thread?