I don't really get the "what we are calling AI isn't actual AI" take, as it seems to me to presuppose a definition of intelligence.
Like, yes, ChatGPT and the like are stochastic machines built to generate reasonable sounding text. We all get that. But can you prove to me that isn't how actual "intelligence" works at it's core?
And you can argue that actual intelligence requires memories or long running context, but that's trivial to jerry-rig a framework around ChatGPT that does exactly that (and has been done already a few times).
Idk man, I have yet to see one of these videos actually take the time to explain what makes something "intelligent" and why that is the definition of intelligence that they believe is the correct one.
Whether something is "actually" AI seems much more a question for a philosophy major than a computer science major.
Twelve billion is a 12 with 9 zeros after it.
Lop off 4 from the 120,000 leaves you with 5 zeros, and the twelves cancel, so 100,000 per person. Divided by 3 is $33,333 per person per year.
So, yeah, your math didn't math I'm afraid.
Probably still a good bit cheaper than most people's rent in NYC, but still very expensive.
Fair. That's a clever solution to getting around the problem of needing to duplicate your set up.
It is a big step up in complexity though, as you now need an IR receiver as well as an IR blaster, some sort of physical button(s) on the device that puts it into "learning" mode to detect what signal it needs to duplicate (and indicate if it's learning volume up or down), and all the additional development overhead each of those entails.
You'd probably see a good jump in the parts cost too. Especially as, when adding more controls and sensors, it increases the complexity of the enclosure you'd put all this in, meaning you probably would need some CAD work done as well. Or someone willing to do some precision woodworking.
All told it's probably about three to five times harder than just knowing the correct IR sequences up front and baking them into the product, so you'd see a commensurate increase in price.
Gotcha. The tricky part with that is gonna be that it's specific to the model of your entertainment system.
Means that if whoever you have working on it is non-local, they'll need to find a duplicate of your entertainment system to test on to make sure it works, which is obviously not super feasible.
If a local buddy asked me to build something like that, I had the time, and I charged fair market value for the work, you're probably looking at a couple grand.
If it was a good buddy and I only charged for parts, it'd probably be only a hundred bucks or so?
I wouldn't even really consider doing it as a remote job, as getting a copy of your receiver is more trouble than it's worth I think. Depends on the receiver to some degree though I guess.
I deff read the prompt as having a bunch of rechargeable AA style Li-ion batteries, and how to utilize them without having to swap out to a new pair or whatever.
Deff don't want to do this with a bunch of disparately sized smart batteries providing power over USB. Very different problem.
Or, I mean, it could just wire all the positives together and all the negatives together and hook that right into your target device.
It'd be the same output voltage regardless. A little less internal resistance, and lower step down in the later phases, but neither should make a difference in what you're powering.
Kinda like how there were those converters for the GameBoy back in the day that let you put C batteries into it. Same principle.
I have the gamesir, and I like it a lot. My one complaint though is that the USB-C is just too long to be "right" when I don't have a case on my phone, but just too short to work with a case on my phone. I really wish there was a way to adjust the depth of the plug. :/
Was intrigued by "no other symbols" than open and close bracket. Was curious how that would work while still being intuitive, so I looked at the examples. I'm now confused what you could have meant by that.
Just glancing through the example code I saw +,-,>,<,=, and ;.
Like, at that point you've pretty much covered all the standard symbols. What "no other symbols" are there? Curly braces and pound signs?
And I'm not sure how beginner friendly this actually is, looking over the examples. Like, I feel like python is currently the "low bar beginner language" that you're competing in that space with, and I don't see what this is offering over that in terms of easiness.
Sure, python has more "functions you need to learn" I suppose, but if the answer to that is, "you don't have to learn them in kcats because they don't exist and you have to implement them yourself," it seems like a detriment rather than a boon...
I don't really get the "what we are calling AI isn't actual AI" take, as it seems to me to presuppose a definition of intelligence.
Like, yes, ChatGPT and the like are stochastic machines built to generate reasonable sounding text. We all get that. But can you prove to me that isn't how actual "intelligence" works at it's core?
And you can argue that actual intelligence requires memories or long running context, but that's trivial to jerry-rig a framework around ChatGPT that does exactly that (and has been done already a few times).
Idk man, I have yet to see one of these videos actually take the time to explain what makes something "intelligent" and why that is the definition of intelligence that they believe is the correct one.
Whether something is "actually" AI seems much more a question for a philosophy major than a computer science major.