https://www.newstarget.com/2025-08-02-texas-ai-data-centers-...

This kind of corporate behavior is bad and will end up hurting somebody. If we're lucky the fallout will only hurt Nvidia. More likely it will end up hurting most taxpayers.

1d (train) - easy. just one lever

2d (car) - hard. super hard. why is it so crowded? who thought this was a good idea? you let teenagers do this?

2.5d (plane at takeoff or landing) - almost as hard as car. fewer pedestrians.

3d (plane flying) - easy even with all those extra levers

This constraint leads to symbol overloading. But careless, rampant overloading results in the same problem - too many things to remember. So you have to constrain your overloads.

With these constraints, if you want to design a practical, usable, general-purpose language (without forcing users to define every useful thing themselves), you have to choose composable abstractions. Prioritizing a single data structure (arrays) lets you focus your design effort and historically has good mechanical sympathy with the available computers, but there could just as easily be an "APL, but for associative maps" type language.

My point is "good terseness" comes from a holistic design approach, and simply making a bad language more terse will makes its flaws more obvious.

Over time I developed the opinion that LaTeX is an unnecessary tax on scientific progress. It's insanity to keep using it when HTML exists.

They want to ban states from imposing their own regulations on AI.

    def agent(data, predicate, fns):
      ps = map(predicate, data)
      fs = map(lambda x:fns[x], ps)
      return map(fs, data)

This is "agent" from J: https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/atdot#agent

And I doubt there are any such hidden capabilities because if there were it would be valuable to OpenAI to surface them (e.g. by adding "think carefully" to the default/system prompt). Since adding "think carefully" changes the output significantly, it's safe to assume this is not part of the default prompt. Perhaps because adding it is not helpful to average queries.

    is_trick(question)  # 50% accurate

    is_trick(question, label)  # 100% accurate

...

If ChatGPT had "sense" your extra prompt should do nothing. The fact that adding the prompt changes the output should be a clue that nobody should ever trust an LLM anywhere correctness matters.

[edit]

I also tried the original question but followed-up with "is it possible that the doctor is the boy's father?"

ChatGPT said:

Yes, it's possible for the doctor to be the boy's father if there's a scenario where the boy has two fathers, such as being raised by a same-sex couple or having a biological father and a stepfather. The riddle primarily highlights the assumption about gender roles, but there are certainly other family dynamics that could make the statement true.

I suppose depending on your point of view, LLMs either can't hallucinate, or that's all they can do.