I believe that there is at least some learning/cultivation; I've seen plenty people becoming nicer over time, and some nice people becoming arseholes. However that is not enough to rule out a potential innate component.
1990? Oh I remember it. In Brazil they wouldn't be listing the year though, but the month - hyperinflation was raging on, back then. (I remember the 100 cruzeiro coins. They were cute.)
Anyway. The number doesn't match any pair of prices:
- from '90 to '22 (32y): 224%
- from '22 to '23 (1y): 162%
- from '90 to '23 (33y): 364%
And one detail that they didn't mention is that +100%~200% between the 90s and the 20s is not a big deal, but +60% in a single year is a big fucking deal. That smells artificial as fuck, reinforcing what people have been saying here about not being inflation but price gouging.
Who said that the word doesn't haue "u"?
Was that my Father that went hence so fast?
Ben. It was: what sadnes lengthens Romeo's houres?
Ro. Not hauing that, which hauing, makes them short
Ben. In loue.
Romeo. Out.
Ben. Of loue.
Rom. Out of her fauour where I am in loue.
Ben. Alas that loue so gentle in his view,
Romeo and Juliet, foglio I, around verse 170
...good enough for Shakespeare, good enough for me. No need for a fifth letter!
I'm half-joking with the above, but the word did use to be spelled with "U" instead of "V". Past then both were taken as the same letter. [/trivia]
Thanks for the info!
I gave Dadanitic a check, and apparently what's being revived is the script, no? Or is the language itself also being revived?
In the context of the OP: yes, Great Britain is part of the socio-political, economical and cultural area referred to as "Europe".
In a strictly topographical context: no, Great Britain is not part of the peninsula referred to as "Europe". It is simply not in a continent, just like Honshu and Sri Lanka aren't either.
(Relevant detail: I'm focusing on GB alone, but UK also controls Gibraltar. The later is a topographical part of Europe, as it borders the territory controlled by Spain in Iberia.)
You didn't bother me at all, don't worry. I was just worried about spoiling a potential joke that I didn't get.
And you know what, I asked Bard the question. Here's the output:
That's a fun thought experiment! Since potatoes are not biological organisms, they don't have the capacity for legs in the first place. So, if we enter the realm of hypotheticals, the number of legs a legless potato could have becomes entirely up to our imagination.
Here are some options to consider:
- Zero: This is the most straightforward answer, sticking to the literal meaning of "legless." Even in a hypothetical scenario, a potato without legs would still have, well, no legs.
- One: Maybe the potato has a single sprout that acts as a multifunctional limb, allowing it to hop, roll, or reach for nutrients.
- Two: Perhaps the potato has two root tendrils that it uses to navigate and stabilize itself.
- Infinite: Why not get whimsical? Imagine a potato covered in a multitude of tiny, spider-like legs, allowing it to scurry across the ground.
Ultimately, the number of legs your legless potato has depends on your creativity! There are no wrong answers in this thought experiment, so have fun and explore the possibilities.
Who knows, maybe your imaginative potato with its unique number of legs could become the star of a quirky children's book or a surreal art piece!
A+ for effort, Bard. F for understanding.
The first response seems reasonable for me; it's informative and replying to an ambiguous comment, as you can't quite know if "isn't there" refers to his individual needs or in general.
The second response is however passive aggressive garbage. Fl4ppers clarified that he was talking about his individual needs; notjustforhackers failed to take it into account, and his response sounds a lot like "I'm just sayin lol lmao... you liar".
[I'll answer this seriously but dunno if you're being serious or just playing along the ridiculous setting.]
In this scenario, the matter here would be the other potatoes. Because, once you say that two of the four potatoes are legless, you're implying that the other two have legs; as such, the sum of the legs of all four potatoes would not be zero.
[Double reply to avoid editing my earlier comment]
From the HN thread:
It's a good example how this models are not answering based on any form of understanding and logic reasoning but probabilistic likelihood in many overlapping layers. // Through this also may not matter if this creates a good enough illusion of understanding and intelligence.
I think that the first sentence is accurate, but I disagree with the second one.
Probabilistic likelihood is not enough to create a good illusion of understanding/intelligence. Relying on it will create situations as in the OP, where the bot outputs nonsense because of an unexpected prompt.
To avoid that, the model would need some symbolic (or semantic, or conceptual) layer[s], and handle the concepts being conveyed by the tokens, not just the tokens themselves. But that's already closer to intelligence than to prob likelihood.
So are snakes just not in the animal kingdom at all??
Of course they aren't! Snakes, fish, slugs, they're all moving fungi. (On another matter, each spider is 2x more of an animal than your typical mammal. 4x than birds and us.) /s
Cool idea. The implementation could be improved - you can only play it once a day, and it's simply too easy.
Even in hard mode, without seeing the reference colour, you can find any number with five guesses (and the 5th guess is only necessary if there's an F). Pictures related: