deltaonenine

I didn't say that it can't be serious, many cartoons are serious, but even if it's serious that doesn't mean it's like how normal people talk. You do know that Japanese people don't talk like people in anime?

No, cartoons aren't drawn seriously. There can be serious moments with cartoons You can clearly a difference between how a cartoon is drawn and how a realistic anime is drawn.

Yes, you are correct most anime in japanese is highly stylized. Not cowboy bebop though. Cowboy bebop is realistic in terms of voice acting. Many more realistic animes that are more realistically drawn also drop the stylized voice acting.

The serious parts of Cowboy Bebop came off as serious in the dub for me.

You've admitted there's bad acting. So basically you can take bad acting seriously.

I think I just have different tastes to you, which you seem to find confusing or difficult to accept. I guess you would prefer a global hegemony of boring humans that have identical opinions to you, but that's not how it is.

There's a concept of bad taste and good taste. Nobody is explicitly saying it but this is what the discussion is about. I am saying your taste is bad. You're saying cowboy bebop is a cartoon, so bad acting is acceptable and therefore you have good taste.

I've watched a reasonable amount of anime, and I almost always prefer the dub, be it Cowboy Bebop, Welcome to the NHK, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Pokemon, even Steins;Gate

Yeah. I can see that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDtYYrcByNE the person who made this video agrees with you on NGE.

I don't see much of a difference between calling it a Japanese cartoon and an anime. In English they're called cartoons, so I think that's a non-issue

It's a huge issue. Cartoons are silly. Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are cartoons. Cartoons are for kids. Spike Speagal is not a toon. You know the distinction, please don't pretend you don't know.

As I said to the other reply, I'm not saying cartoon = silly, I'm saying cartoon = not reality. Even if it were dubbed with serious Japanese voice acting, do you think normal Japanese people talk that way? No.

No movie or cinema = reality. Everything is made up. So this is actually a non-issue.

Second, you're not stupid. Many animes including cowboy bebop are drawn like comics. With a more realistic style. You understand this concept, please don't pretend you don't. You know exactly what I mean when I say this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=cartoon

Is less realistic then this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=spike+speagal

You see the difference visually right? If not then I can't help you. If you do see that the realism is increased in the second link, then I have to tell you, the voices also need increased realism to match or many people wouldn't be ok with it. I have a friend who is similar to you doesn't even notice bad acting, he likes shows with laughable acting like the flash on the WB. I think you might be like him.

Cowboy Bebop has funny moments and it has serious moments, I think the funny moments come through better in the dub, and the serious moments are portrayed excellently too.

Your definition of "better" does not include good acting. Since anime is not reality and movies and basically everything you see on TV is not reality.... it seems to me you just don't care for good acting in general. It's a non-issue to you. So the shitty acting in all dubbed anime, cowboy bebop included,... you wouldn't mind seeing all the weird ass "Huh?"s and pauses I see in dubs in a Hollywood live action movie. Or is there a difference here? You tell me.

Even if it were dubbed with serious Japanese voice acting, do you think normal Japanese people talk that way? No.

Most anime has over stylized voices. Cowboy bebop is NOT such an anime. The voice actors are realistic and representative of how real Japanese talk.

But even so the stylized voices need a certain level of realism so the japanese people can be drawn into the story. No American dub hits that level of realism at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLmsVBgZiak

I mean if you can watch above and say the voice acting passes because it's a "cartoon" and not real I think we're just too different.

Comical in the wrong sense, as in it's so bad it's funny.

The sub is more serious sounding and is a reflection of what the directors vision was. The english version is a mangling of what cowboy bebop was intended to be. Heck Faye in japanese sounds like a 25 year old woman while in the English version she sounds 40.

also don't see why it needs to be like how normal people talk, because it's literally a cartoon.

You realize that anime is a genre in itself that can be as serious as anything else out there? Japanese voice actors are the best in the world. Cowboy bebop has comedic elements but the genre is NOT cartoon, it's science fiction noir with a jazzy element and kung fu. Nowhere in there is "cartoon."

I think you like cartoons. And you like the warped version of what cowboy bebop was not intended to be. Or is this really true? The ending was serious. Was the ending still cartoony to you?

Maybe it isn't that you like cartoons. Maybe you're just use to the voice actors and can see past the horrible acting. Or maybe you're not use to subs. Even so the fact that you can hear the bad acting from the dub shows that you're preference is less than objective. The Japanese version has definitively better acting.

I can't accept the dubbed versions level of acting in a regular Hollywood movie, so I can't accept it if it's in an anime too. The bar doesn't lower for me just because it's an animation, but I guess it does for you.

The dub is comical and has bad acting. The pacing and the tone is completely off from how normal people talk.

The japanese, even though I don't understand it, has a better tone and the talking doesn't sound forced.

I logged in to comment to say I absolutely despised the dub.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdxUNk1wR4

Do not watch the dub.

This is real and scientifically validated. The first person who ran the 4 minute mile changed the game by using intervals. Prior to that everyone trained for the mile by running the mile.

Athletes who train for the mile have to have intervals as the majority of their regiment. This is by far more effective then running long distances for increasing vo2 max.

When talking about these things there is a meta level we are targetting that you're not understanding. Types exist at a meta level and are part of the language.

Assembly language does not have types. What you can do is create a new language with assembly and have that language have types. The reason why it has to be done this way is because these types of checks CANNOT happen at runtime. It's a pre-runtime check that prevents the code from even running if it's not correct.

Think about it. Can you add types to assembly language without creating a new language? No.

What he want's are languages that explore making them ergonomic at the language level.

This is exactly what dependently typed languages like coq and idris are attempting to do. What he wants ALREADY exists and these things are trying to fulfill EXACTLY his intent. I am not attempting to talk about some obscure isomorphism.

You also cannot build all 6 things in any number of languages unless you are using those languages to build new languages. These checks exist at the type level, not at runtime, but pre-compile time.

just pass a const reference. It's immutable anyway.

No he wants two things. Those 6 different things have isomorphisms and can be reduced down to two things.

Think of it like 1*2 && 2. Both expressions are isomorphic. Dependent types literally encompasses everything he wants.

I understand one aspect of it in terms of probability. However another aspect of it eludes me as well, as I described in my last paragraph.

There's also a third angle from information theory. This type of understanding I haven't really studied in depth yet.

I use it in the colloquial sense. Disordered, random.

12345 is less plentiful then 32415 or 32154 or .... What we considered "ordered" has less possibilities then "unordered" not just in a string of 5 numbers but for most systems. That should help you get the intuition. Lmk if you need more elaboration.

Entropy.

It was hard for me to understand this arbitrary rule of things becoming less ordered over time. Was this just a fundamental natural law?

The answer is no. Entropy is a logical consequence of probability and time.

Why do things become more chaotic over time? Because chaotic configurations have a higher probability of occurring.

There are far more disordered configurations of things then there are ordered, this is why things become more disorder with time. Time changes the configuration. And by probability a high probability configuration is more likely to occur then a low probability configuration. So the axiom of nature here is not entropy, it's probability. Entropy is just a consequence of probability.

There are systems where ordered configurations are more numerous then disordered configuration and in those systems things become more ordered with time. In these cases entropy is STILL defined to be increasing as things get more ordered. Thus entropy is not describing disorder, or is it?

The thing I don't fully understand yet is heat entropy. Apparently when you take heat into account for everything, the disordered intuition suddenly becomes applicable. So if you have a system becoming more ordered with time, heat must be increasing somewhere to offset this increase in order. Maybe someone can explain this part to me?

Basically the man wants two opposite things.

He wants contracts which is basically dependent types. These rules live in types and already exists in agda, Idris and coq and has a range of tradeoffs.

Essentially these languages can enforce static checks and "contracts" so powerful you don't need unit tests. These "contracts" cover more ground and are safer then tests. The tradeoff is you need a big brain and lots of time to write these things.

Then he wants a language that is truly dynamic. Which is like the opposite.

2. Copying memory around to enable to facilitate these immutable structures is SLOW.

This is categorically wrong. You actually don't know what you're talking about.

In an functional programming language, because everything is immutable, the compiler just MOVES everything around. There is ZERO copying in a functional programming language. In fact there's no explicit command for it either. There is zero reason for you to copy a variable that is immutable so there's no copy() function.

What you're referring to is more of what happens when someone is writing functional code in a language that's not functional.

I like FP but debuggers fail with FP because debuggers are imperative tools. There's a definite miss match in both UI and concept. It's not the fault of FP itself, it's more the fault that we haven't come up with such an interface yet.

If you want an FP debugger the interface has to be able to step by step evaluate an expression. Since FP is just a giant expression, how is it evaluated step by step? Break points will be different and stepping through it will be different as well.

Take for example:

    (1 + 2) * 3 + 2

    (1 + 2) * 3 + 2
    (3) * 3 + 2
    9 + 2
    11

    (1 + 2) + [(4 * 6)] + 1

     (3) + [(4 * 6)] + 1

You need a complete UI overhaul for FP to work. This tends to be harder in terms of building a UI, because text by nature is a one to one mapping to procedural instructions as text Lines are equivalent to instructions. However for FP everything can basically be on one line, so text doesn't really fit and thus you actually need a more dynamic UI for a proper FP debugger.

I love pure functions, but in the end, I think it is just a tool. A solution to a set of problems,

I'm tired of seeing this analogy everywhere. Everyone knows it, there's nothing new here. When we talk about things like FP or OOP, the real opinions live at the extremes. Where one tool is definitively better than another tool or where some tools are complete garbage.

Saying that everything is a tool for different things or it's all apples and oranges says nothing about anything.

It's like listening to a flat earth advocate.

You and the other person don't understand.

All data structures have types. EVEN lists of records that each contain further records. A type or a data structure is an orthogonal concept to FP, because types exist in imperative programming and data structures also exist in FP.

It's from the US. Sees candy boxes are loaded with random chocolates and you won't know what the chocolates contain until you put one in your mouth.

The quote was made famous by an old US movie starring Tom Hanks. The movie is called Forrest Gump. Fittingly, the character who said that quote is mentally challenged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJh59vZ8ccc

Metrics to drive up numbers are the way forward. You need to test theories and prove them with data and experiments. THIS is what is expected in a report; and I see nothing I expect in this report.

Everything you see here is NOT sophistication. It has no science it's just an illusion.

The use of geometry and technical jargon gives the illusion of legitimacy however this stuff is no more legit then the word 'science' in 'scientology'. Which means that exactly like scientology, the content is illegitimate but borrows vocabulary from legitimate fields like "science" to make it seem real.

The use of analogies like DNA help people form connections with irrelevant things and these analogies don't actually communicate any new information. They serve to create a feeling of catharsis when you realize that there is a connection, but the connection is actually worthless. You learn nothing new.

Take the analogy: "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." The quote is worthless. You already know life is random. You already know chocolate boxes are random. A comparison is made and a new connection is formed in your brain. But is there actually any new information here? No. It's a trick to make you think the quote is profound when it is really a bunch of mundane stuff you already know.

You've been bamboozled, along with every exec that fell for this report. Possibly the person who wrote this report tricked himself as well.

No no. You made a mistake. I'm not calling you that at all. I'm saying the description of the ai, when replaced with more humanized terms sounds like a description of a slowish human being in terms of mental capacity. This is still compelling imo.

Not calling you mentally challenged at all.

It's magic. You can't see it. But the fact that we have to probe a machine for these results means the result was not predictable or expected. That's magic.

I think people are biased. What makes me think this? Because some of these AIs have already cleared Turing tests. But everyone is moving the bar higher... a Turing test is no longer a valid definition for sentience; and everyone has developed reasoning for why. Changing definitions to accommodate beliefs is bias.

I actually agree with you. It is a token prediction based off of basic math. That's also essentially what a human brain is... A token predictor based off of basic math.

The existence of these AIs aren't making any profound statements about technological achievement. No. The simplicity of these machines are actually making a statement about human intelligence and how trivial and simple human intelligence actually is.

Again I repeat, the AIs figured it out faster then many humans. This was something previously humans should've universally been better at.

Sure, that conversation seems a little off. But a bar in terms of expectations and AI technology was moved, the fact that someone posted this on HN is proof of this.

You know what's compelling about this?

What's compelling is that this AI figured it out faster then many humans would've.

I don't think you can call this thing sentient, but it is equally naive to say that this thing is completely and obviously not sentient.

It's not clear what's going on here. Whatever this is, it's blurring the boundaries between human intelligence and artificial. At the very least, I hope we all can agree on this.