If I had to guess, cash - king + queen = credit (or money or something?). You are just asking the same thing as cash - man + woman, or "What is the feminine version of cash?" because queen - king ~= woman - man.
I say credit, because it is not as physical and direct as cash, so perhaps it is perceptually more feminine?
But I will have to check the next time I work with word2vec.
Perhaps femininity is a more specific concept than masculinity. I call this the "Mrs Pac Man Effect".
It is more common for people to personify objects (say, a rock or a frog or a random internet user) as male than female. In many languages, the plural for a group of things is male even if it only has one male element.
A simple charachter like pac man is male in a universal kiki/bouba sense, but the female equivalent needs a bow (it is a more complex specalization of its male counterpart)
Obviously, biologicially male-ness is a specialization of female-ness, because females more resemble unsexed creatures in their ability to reproduce.
But in the latent space of the human mind, or in language I think male is closer to "default" and female is a specialzation of maleness. Even the words female or woman are modifications of the word male or man.
Perhaps this evolved out of primative social structures. If women occupy a more domestic social role and men a more nomadic one, then you would encounter more men in the outer world. So you would generally associate unknown things in the external world as being masculine, and would associate feminity with specific inter-village inter-family things of your local world
The word female does not, in fact, decompose as fe+male; instead it comes from the same latin root as feminine. The word was influenced over time to more resemble male only because people thought they were related.
What would debating the ideas do? You either get it or you don't. There is a large sum of people who are categoricially indifferent to the idea of debate. They just support the status quo blindly, no matter what.
For example, you haven't even read the first sentence of the relevant material and you are already in a soylent-driven tizzy making lists of synonyms and debating whether we should even be allowed to debate.
People posting random cute candids of their family and pets is about the most commonplace type of social media post there is. You should be getting angry at the weird pervs sexualizing the images (and the giant AI company enabling it).
I don't think it's that unusual on the scale of one person. it just happens sometimes, for example with Henry VIII. It could just be thr nature of the coin toss.
Henry VIII had only three legitimate kids surviving infancy, one of which was a boy. He was 1/3 for boys in this count. Add in the one for sure illegitimate child and he's 2/4 born male. Of those infants who were stillborn or died very early into their infancy, several were boys but it seems the counts for those children were uncertain. Also, there were probably several illegitimate male and female children had by him.
Most of his kids were conceived through IVF, and sex selection through IVF is not difficult. He also has disowned his one trans daughter because she refuses to be his son.
> don't think it's that unusual on the scale of one person
It would be remarkably unlikely. It's fair to say Musk is probably sex selecting for sons. It doesn't follow that he has plans "to make women afraid to participate in public life."
Yes, it is. But it's not just Google. User fingerprinting is already a massive market and is growingly user hostile. There's at least one HN post each month of someone losing access to their account for no real reason and no way to get it back.
I don't want internet infrastructure to support this behavior. On contrary, I want it to resist it, and IPv4 does, to some extent, while IPv6 makes it much easier.
1. People come here for discussions with real people. The other night I was at a party and we had a great time playing chess and board games. It would be weird if someone started using stockfish, even if it is a better player. Everything stockfish does, it already knows. It doesn't learn or explore the game-space.
2. The response is still too wordy, generic, and boring. So LLMs are not really better players, at least for now.
3. With LLMs, you can produce a ton of text much faster than it can be read. Whereas the dynamic is reversed for ordinary writing. By writing this by hand, I am doing you a favor by spending more time on this comment than you will. But by reading your LLM output I am doing you a favor by spending more time reading than you did generating.
You could probably get away with using an LLM here by copying the response and then cutting down 90% of it. But at that point it would be better to just restate the points yourself in your own words.
So cheap questions where the answers could be readily had are not downvoted even though the answers to their question are right here in the discussion. Whereas because I did not do the legwork that my correspondent would not do, I am penalised. That’s what I’m hearing.
EDITED TO ADD:
> by reading your LLM output I am doing you a favor by spending more time reading than you did generating
How could my respondent (presumably on whose behalf you are making the argument) possibly be doing me a favour when they asked the question? Is it each of our responsibility to go to some lengths to spoon feed one another when others don’t deign to feed themselves?
I don't think so. It would be more confusion because no one will know if a network is ipv4 or ipv4+, leading to edge case bugs and confusion and people will similarly be lazy and choose to only implement ipv4 knowing it will always be reverse compatible and the cost is transferred to the consumer.
Plus, it's only 2048x the address space. It's within the realm of possibility that we will need to upgrade again once this place is swarming with robots.
x2048 is a lot though! Maybe we should let the robots figure out their own solution, rather than trying to make every atom on Earth individually addressable :)
I say credit, because it is not as physical and direct as cash, so perhaps it is perceptually more feminine?
But I will have to check the next time I work with word2vec.
reply