Nemra

@CARDOZZO, you basically admitted that he is socially constructed.

Jesus as a religious figure is socially constructed. Also, different religions and denominations have different interpretations about Jesus.

Why Elon, why!

It's an excellent idea. It would be like an interactive book.

Perfectly said. This is like throwing acid on a Christian's face.

Even if we think of ourselves as objective, what would being objective mean? Being aware of the system you're in? Moving into another system, if so, how many are there and which one could we go into, and would we stay objective as we are going to be affected by the system? 😅

At least I could be right. 😁

Or we can be objective about another system but not to ours', which means that we are observing another system from the outside but inside our system. But I don't think that, in this case, being objective is actually objective. Or maybe I'm wrong what he meant.

I think maybe he means being objective could make you outside the system from inside the system.

I think he could mean that we can imagine a unicorn like we are imagining a horse. But our imagination of a unicorn in our current level isn't equal to the imagination of a horse.

@Husseinisdoingfine, it's oxymoronic.

I would say that anyone who uses the term "God", especially public intellectuals, is sus.

I don't know much about Jews, but I have direct experience seeing how people are indoctrinated because of a genocide that happened to their elders a century ago. It deeply affects people's thinking. I often feel like an alien to them and vice versa, as I don't try to depend on them too much, or more like a familiar alien.

By the way, The Paradox Of Knowing Social Systems post was excellent!

Both

The problem is how we define and categorize what is feminine and masculine. Are they energy, behavior, etc.? Does male/female biology determine that we are going to be masculine/feminine?

What would it be called if someone got something from each side of the list? 🤔

@Yimpa, it really is beautiful. Also, conan's podcast is one of the best.

I felt it. 😁

James McAvoy's voice is very soothing.

The following is generated by ChatGPT. The latest models from OpenAI (ChatGPT-4o) and Anthropic (Claude 3.5 Sonnet) demonstrate significant advancements in their context windows and token limits, making them more suitable for large-scale tasks and long conversations or document analysis. Context Window: Claude 3.5 Sonnet offers an impressive 200,000-token context window, allowing it to handle very large inputs such as entire books or hundreds of pages of documents. This capacity is ideal for analyzing large datasets, complex documents, or maintaining long conversations without losing context. It can manage up to approximately 500 pages of text, which equals about 150,000 words. ChatGPT-4o also has a robust 128,000-token context window, an improvement over previous versions of GPT-4. While smaller than Claude's, this context window can still handle around 300 pages of text, or 90,000 words, making it highly capable of analyzing long-form content and maintaining coherence over extensive interactions. Output Token Limits: Claude 3.5 Sonnet allows a maximum output of 4,096 tokens in most cases, with some beta configurations supporting up to 8,192 tokens. However, even with the high context window, its output per response remains limited to this range, meaning that extremely long outputs would need to be split across multiple responses. ChatGPT-4o offers a similar output range, generating around 4,096 tokens per interaction, though some reports suggest it can go up to 8,192 tokens in certain cases. This makes it suitable for generating complex answers but may require managing outputs in stages for very lengthy responses. Application & Performance: Claude 3.5 Sonnet excels in tasks involving reasoning, long document summarization, and coding, often outperforming GPT-4o in benchmarks related to reasoning and coding accuracy. For example, it achieved a 92% score in the HumanEval benchmark for coding tasks, compared to GPT-4o's 90.2%. Its larger context window is especially useful for maintaining context in extended interactions, making it a strong choice for long documents or intricate conversations. ChatGPT-4o, while not as strong in reasoning over extended contexts, performs better in natural language understanding, math, and visual tasks like diagram interpretation. It is also more feature-rich, offering multimodal capabilities such as image recognition, which Claude 3.5 lacks. In summary, Claude 3.5 Sonnet is highly suitable for users needing extended context and reasoning over long interactions, especially in coding or document-intensive tasks. GPT-4o, while slightly behind in raw context handling, remains a versatile option with superior features for a broader range of applications, including multimodal tasks and faster response times.

The following is generated by Perplexity AI. Context Window Analysis Claude AI Sonnet 3.5's context window of 200,000 tokens allows it to handle extensive documents or long conversations seamlessly. This is particularly advantageous for tasks requiring deep contextual understanding, such as legal document analysis or comprehensive research projects. ChatGPT-4o's context window of 128,000 tokens is substantial and sufficient for many applications, it may require segmentation for very large datasets or prolonged interactions. This can be a limitation in scenarios where maintaining continuity over long exchanges is crucial. Maximum Tokens Analysis The maximum output token limit for Claude AI Sonnet 3.5 can reach up to 8,192 tokens, which is beneficial for generating detailed responses in one go. However, if not configured correctly (using the appropriate header), it defaults to a lower limit of 4,096 tokens, which may necessitate breaking down longer outputs into multiple parts. For ChatGPT-4o, empirical evidence suggests that the output limit varies between 4,096 and 8,192 tokens, depending on the user’s settings and application context. This flexibility allows users to adjust their expectations based on the task at hand but may also lead to confusion regarding the effective limits during usage. Practical Implications Use Cases: Claude AI Sonnet 3.5's high context window makes it ideal for applications requiring extensive data analysis or long-form content generation without losing track of prior interactions. ChatGPT-4o remains effective for many standard tasks but may require chunking for very long content or complex queries. Performance in Conversations: Claude’s ability to maintain context over longer conversations allows it to provide coherent and relevant responses throughout extensive interactions. ChatGPT-4o can manage conversational flow but might struggle with continuity if the interaction exceeds its effective token limits. Development and Coding Tasks: For developers needing rapid code generation or analysis of large codebases, Claude AI Sonnet’s larger context window facilitates better performance by allowing more code or documentation to be processed at once. ChatGPT-4o can still handle coding tasks effectively but may require more management of input sizes due to its comparatively smaller context window. Conclusion The choice between ChatGPT-4o and Claude AI Sonnet 3.5 largely depends on specific use cases: For tasks involving extensive context retention and the need for long-form content generation or complex data analysis, Claude AI Sonnet 3.5 offers a clear advantage with its larger context window and higher token limits. Conversely, ChatGPT-4o provides flexibility suitable for many practical applications but may require careful management of input sizes in contexts where continuity is critical.

@bambi, sorry, but I won't share it with you. It's interesting how you diverged from what we were talking about.

Yeah, with stupid boundaries. The irony is unbearable.

No offense, said the triggered one, lol. And you think you're helping people here? Go breathe some fresh air.