I like this answer. Been reading “Gödel’s Proof” and for a demonstration where the definition of “tautology” in the main text makes use of the concepts of True and False, there is an appendix explaining that you can arrive at the same result without those concepts, just by treating things as belonging to one class vs another (there is a one to one correspondence with True and False but the meaning is arbitrary)
"An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician have to build a fence around a flock of sheep, using as little material as possible.
The engineer forms the flock into a tight circular shape and constructs a fence around it.
The physicist builds a fence with an infinite diameter and pulls it together until it fits around the flock.
The mathematician thinks for a while, then builds a fence around himself and defines himself as being outside.”
The model learns an embedding table, where (roughly) each row is used as the model’s internal representation of each token. The numbers in that table are learned. What isn’t learned is the map from token (i.e. combination of characters/byte-pairs) to row-index in the embedding table. That is given by tokenization
Of course, that's far from saying that they're the worst, or even headed that way. Just not the best (those would be a couple of fully opensource models, including those of the Instructor family, which we use at my workplace).
These guys [1] used to be called Nerdalize and iirc their first iteration looked a lot like this. I think they have since moved to a model of a few select locations where nodes are closer to each other.
The "lab-grown" term is [EDIT: sometimes and apparently incorrectly] used for plant-based meat substitutes like Impossible Burger. It probably shouldn't be, but it is.
I honestly don’t think there can be any argument there. Plant-based meat substitutes have been around for a long time, are emphatically not “lab grown meat”, and I have never heard anybody refer to them as such. That’s a distinct category which has also been receiving a lot of attention in the past few years.
I, too, used to confuse Memphis Meats with Impossible Food / Beyond Meat.
It's just that news of lab-grown meat and outfits like Impossible Food kinda sprung up at the same time in the news within the last 5 years and it's easy to confuse the endeavors. In fact, I see this misconception enough that I think IF/BM benefit from the confusion.
I have never heard anyone so confused that they can't tell the difference between "animal that was never alive" and "made from vegetable products". This isn't confusing, and I will need evidence to believe that it is "widely used". I don't think I've ever even heard someone attempt to conflate the two before you.
But I acknowledge that just because this is completely obvious to me and I've never met someone who was confused about the difference doesn't mean they don't exist.
I honestly don't care what people call the different types of meat substitutes. Plant-based meat seems a bit odd to me because it's not, you know, meat. But it seems to be the term in use.
Yes, I understand that there is a difference between grown from meat cells and made from plants with components that make it look and taste more like meat.
102,000 of those are "plant-based meat alternatives". 46,700 are for "plant-based meat substitutes". I'd imagine there are quite a few other synonyms that continue to winnow it down.
In what sense do you mean you "need animal every single meal"? "Need" as in "want really bad, can't live without it", or "need" as in "my body won't function properly without it"?
Also, can you give some examples of the contra-arguments you mentioned?
In a sense that I need to feel great and healthy. I can live without anything basically, can live on supplements in extreme but do I want to ? No.
Judging from the extreme levels of body logging in previous 10 years, and from the fact that I had some sort of trouble always prior to eating animals as main thing, I can say with confidence that all my metrics improved - I have better labs, fitness and health today then when I was 20 years younger.
I eat 4 eggs and bacon every breakfast in last 10 years.
Example of contra-arguments: killing animals that don't care about your farm or work (lots of small animals, but some are basically extinct like orangutans cuz of palm oil stuff), poisoning environment with monoculture and Roundup, taxing the healthcare system and other people because you can't really live on plants without multiple deficiencies and so on...
You can't really fight the universe, that is the main point. You are not made to eat plants, our digestive structure and acid barrier tells that story for sure. Of course, we are all biochemically unique so I totally understand that there are incompatible people but those are exceptions and rules are pretty clear.
I am against animal suffering but animals eating other animals and plants being just another living creature and not divine intervention to provide food for other living creatures is how this universe functions.
OK, let me rephrase - we are not made to eat plants completely or even dominantly. pH of our acid barrier is consistent with this among other thing.
BTW, Vegetarian Resource Group doesn't sound like conflict of interest at all... :S
Anyway, no amount of authority will beat my personal experience. I ate plants, a lot, for decades. Now I don't that much (only some vegetables and nuts). I feel and look much better in previous decade (so not placebo). Period for me. YMMV.
