You can basically ask it advanced scientific questions about concepts you don’t fully grasp but you know how the technology has been used in certain areas. Case in point, quantum cross validation.
I figured I know about IBM’s qiskit, and I know about quantum cross validation, but I’ve never used qiskit and unsure how I would setup the problem.
So… I asked chatGPT my understanding of the problem,
Then I recalled the bright idea to refine the prompt questions based on a feedback loop by volleying back inferences into chatGPT (essentially iterating over the inference system) asking it to rephrase–providing clarity where necessary–and to make any suggested scientific corrections (important: upped the “top p” to ensure it was using more resources to get a quality answer). Then I fed this refined question back into chatGPT until “is the above information accurate, clarify where it’s not” was answered as “True”, and there was nothing left to clarify and then I finally took away what it coded me.
I have yet to test this as I’m still working towards finetuning my own GPT-Neo, but this is what I’ve been hoping people understand about these system’s. They have generalized on the relationships in language to basically query up these results for us. The more data you have exposure to, the more relationships derived the wider the set of questions the system can respond to.
“A friend to all is a friend to none.” – Aristotle This might sound counter intuitive but this implies so many things. Not everyone is going to like you or what you have to say (partisan politicians already know this). By letting bygones be bygones you can focus on what matters, yourself, which you must accept before you can be effective. It means to avoid making an unpleasant situation potentially worse. To be authentic and a person of principle who stands by their message (rather than a populist demagogue or sycophant) who doesn’t back pedal just to be accepted. It means to live, let live, let go, move on with your life and to accept the things you cannot change.
I was thinking about the whole In the beginning was darkness and then there was light That’s an old Enuma Elish motif which Genesis borrowed from (let there be light) Before Genesis, there was the story of Tiamat in mesopotamian culture Anyway. The neoplatonic/jungian take on this is Before there was light, there was no consciousness, there was no soul. There was no subjective experience, only unconscious matter, darkness (i.e. no light/perception to be aware, no differentiation, no awareness apart from, no subjective soul). With Tiamat, the concept was from rising from the murky depths of water below… but that’s just poetic license which isn’t directly applicable here, but when God was “over the waters” in Genesis, it’s referring to this earlier Tiamat who rose from the water motif in Mesopotamian myths. Water is often associated with Venus (Eros), and unconscious (before awareness, Freudian Id). I simply like the darkness equates with unconscious matter bit. It took a reversion upon matter (i.e. reverting to the One) thanks to light (we could differentiate ourselves from matter) to see the forms (ideas, wings of minerva, reflection) to become self-aware (which is really a recollection of ideas, because we reverted from matter to the One in an act of contemplation of forms/intellection, discursive thought). Yeah. I think I’ve kind of hit the nose on consciousness and soul. Which requires matter (objective reality), light (subjectivity, exposure to ideas), and time (discursive reasoning). All big pieces of the mysteries of reality I’ve been trying to solve.
I consider myself a neoplatonist What’s weird tho is I’ve been talking about we all see the same thing but from different angles We’re all describing an angle or worldview or zeitgeist of reality. I don’t really consider myself a pagan in the sense I believe in theistic gods I believe the universe is all with powers that historically have been equated with God’s for lack of a more fitting description But reality is alive. The ideas themselves are alive and evolving and we exist to harvest them. The ideas are derived from a divine mind. That’s God. The mind is eternal and beyond time, or what Plotinus regarded as nondiscursive thought. More aptly described as the nous (the paradigm of ideas that weave reality). Plotinus wrote that the soul turns back to the source (the one) which is of the same substance as our soul. This turning back is reflection or contemplation of objective reality. Its a mind beholding ideas which are sourced from the expressions of matter but are beyond time and exist within the divine mind which we experience discursively.
Thank you for sharing your journey which not only depicted your low days but also highlighted how you overcame and worked on yourself. The best takeaway from the session for me was “𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐬𝐡 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤.” – Manpreet Budhraja
Disclaimer: this is just me trying to make sense of my position.
I’ve struggled with inferiority complex, or what others might call imposter syndrome. I’m certainly not trying to fake it till you make it, nor do I think I’m simply being a dilettante about my passions.
Those concepts though related differ from each other. For example, I struggle with achieving to arrive with where I want to be (data science role) while at the same time I’m intimidated by some of the big data processing capabilities of my peers. Ultimately I do want that good cheese money but I dont consider not having that as disqualifying me to lay claim to that title. A woman told me a long time ago, you are what you say you are, but I believe what Jung said moreso.
“You are not what you say you are, you are what you repeatedly do” (which follows on William Durant’s take on Aristotle) “Excellence is not an act, but a habit.”
Take for example my housing projects. I didn’t need a license to be qualified. I simply needed to do it.
Add to that mix being a bit more than a touch sensitive to criticisms. But I’ve been working on that last part. Trying to listen without judgement. Merely accepting the points of views as areas to grow into. Another idea of Aristotle’s, no man is an island. The polis is the teacher of man. Meaning you are not perfect & must learn from others.
I blame a set of factors for not being in the role I thought I’d be in given my credentials
Gatekeeping Companies vet higher level candidates more stringently. The bar is raised. Different companies have different expectations for what it means to be a data scientist. Ex. Math knowledge? Tools used? How advanced are you in them (sql is a big one, but so are network data frameworks)? Its kind of like class elitism but with skills but there is an element of class in it as well. They don’t expect nor should they that fresh college graduates have them. Basically you may have trained on some formal level but evaluated as not good enough… often. More so than other types of roles.
Ageism “How many years experience would you say you have?” & if it doesn’t match your career length on your resume. You will be evaluated as too old. Companies want to hire malleable fresh college graduates to mold & shape.
Competition Kaggle projects have become the norm to evaluate candidates. Higher level pay means less past the gate
Entry level requirements 3 years paid experience is considered minimal for entry level positions (& data science is often a mid to senior level).
Trying to strive for some level of formal recognition is misguided, at least in the belief its going to land you the position you want. I with my masters presumed it would be an easy transfer to data science but that has not been the case. In 2 years I’ve had 5 interviews for data science roles (thats the Gatekeeping). One I passed but it was for correcting statistical scholarly publications which I turned down after some advice from a former professor. Companies will sell you on “titles” that you strive to earn to feel qualified that ultimately doesn’t get you where you want (sophists). What really matters is not buying into the hype and simply practicing it. I know many people who worked at AT&T for software engineering that didn’t have formal education in software concepts. They were simply bright people who applied themselves. Which is the point. Education can be beneficial but its not a cure all. What excellence really is, is a habit
My advice is twofold.
First and foremost. You have to do you. You can’t be in a job you don’t love. Don’t be discouraged. Always strive for me. Second, be practical. You need 3 trade skills. One you strive for, one that you are practical/efficient in, and one that is a fallback. Mine happen to be Data Science, System Administration, and Housing Construction. But they weren’t always those. At one time it was system admin/dev, pc repair, and dishwashing. But as you progress/evolve you pivot into higher tiers. My fallback plan isn’t so much a means to make money, but a means to avoid becoming destitute (i.e. I can live in the houses I’ve made). But the point is. I didnt wait for anyone to qualify me. I just did them and eventually made something out of my experience and opportunities. But you need to be ready for when the skill you’ve been striving for presents itself as an opportunity which you’ve already habitualized (whether having recieved formal “qualified” training/recognition or not)
Life is a continuous story. We move forward on our trials and learn lessons along the way.
Peace comes when we allow the past that wishes to be remain there.
I struggle w normal life, i.e. letting go of a plethora of friends in youth forced to focus on a handful later. I wasn’t close with my own family growing up and I can tell I tried to fill that void at work. Battle of attrition.
Its like a Chinese finger trap. The more I struggled against life’s expectations of finding oneself just with their family. The more I fulfilled the prophecy.
My mother passed and I had a comforting entheogenic experience while I was away and let me tell you
I spoke with the anima mundi
Or at least an internalized representation of one
I felt like I communicated w the anima mundi or the not self, like I met an intelligent entity that was aware of me and my thoughts. It was way less intense than I thought it would be. Nothing like being projected into another reality.
It appeared on the backdrop of what I was seeing normally. Like reality was made up of light bright lights and you could see a pattern within the lights that made up an entity
It was exactly how I imagined. Symbiotic exterior to us as interior. A daemon, the not self. What Jung calls the “self”, or better yet the collective unconscious personified. Sentient, aware of all. The yin to my yang. I felt like I was interacting with the a higher symbiotic lifeform that is aware of us that cocoons us within it like cells in the body. That is what I would term the not self, anima mundi, or Jung’s self
I felt like–what can be understood as having external influence (or mastery) over our emotional conscious state becomes visible to one’s psyche. Anthropomorphized right in front of us but in the background of the screen of the matrix.
Thats what I felt I saw. An anima mundi spirit
Its weird because I had a theological basis for understanding what I saw from what I’ve read
I’m on the fence whether the connections were made on the fly like a dream or if there is some correlation between what inferred from what I read and what various mystics have said
“Internal vision of a dynamically translated external reality with visual analogues of what influences/affects and is aware of us down to our emotions.”
I saw Hekate (Hekate is Anima Mundi), an immanent world soul. Both Gaia & Kali, akin to Persephone. Bringing & carrying life from her [cosmic] womb. The feminine quaternity [Edward Eddinger] of Jung’s ternary.
Her apparition was immanent in this world, emerging within & because of the flows of sun/moon & seasons
There was one more emotion I felt
Love and joy to see me. There was an element of fire in the way the apparition appeared. A mix between stigmatism & flame princess.
Love / strife, hot / cold. Emergent forms vs entropy
Love/warmth as a principle of organizing unity
It just comforted me letting me know my own internal perspective on life isn’t the end of it all. She showed me how we are all interconnected in this larger “biology” known as the anima mundi. That my mother has gone there. Her psyche reabsorbed into it (the larger unity). Which I believe is the world soul, a product of this cosmos. Fitting into neoplatonic theology of inbetween the One and Soul.
Not to say I don’t believe in him. I just haven’t had a situation that exhumes his mode. That’s kind of what the gods are. They show up and the world conforms to their archetypes. A presence or mood is felt that soaks the room. I don’t mean this literally. I mean this cognitively. When you feel a way (emotional memory) and everything is interpreted a certain way. The meaning of everything lines up a certain way. That’s the god bleeding into your surroundings/psyche
When I called it the anima mundi. She caressed me and embraced me lovingly saying she was so happy to see me and filled me with euphoria. She showed me how my emotions were like a puppet on her hand. It was very humbling. I was basically made bare prostrated, but was accepted for who I was and she was very happy to see me with the level of understanding I had. As if seeing her eye to eye in that way. I was not confused. My brain has analogues from various philosophies what she might represent, and apparently with her the anima mundi identification was spot on.
It appeared like a genie
Out of a fucking bottle Just like a cartoon I mean it wasn’t a direct visual. More like slight alterations of a specific subset of pixels that made up the image
Some of you might find this… idk how you say, “too much information” but I think its worthwhile to say.
My favorite dominatrix, who I’ve had a thing for for years, well she’s into transgenders. I suppose it makes sense, it floats her boat to bend those roles.
Well I thought it was cute she had this one friend. Well it turns out this friend of hers, well she died and the dominatrix I fancy was mourning her loss.
I felt for her and the bond she had with this person.
I had this to say.
“Sorry for your loss. I know you two were close. She was too young but she lived more than most.”
“You were loved and that’s all that matters.”
I know I don’t look the part, but I respect people’s decisions when it comes to their sexual choices/roles/preferences as long as it is between consenting adults (I actually do think it’s a conditioned choice (kind of a Jungian take) that any of us can make under certain conditions but I think that is irrelevant). I believe people’s sexuality universally is a matter of respecting people’s personal preferences and extends back to the days of old (i.e. Babylonia, Phrygia, Cybele Thebes) and, a non religious point of view that Democrats tend to take up more-so because they are the party of compassion. I think Christianity and Abrahanism has dominated and whitewashed the narrative with prescribed norms and people pressure/expect/presume/project married heterosexuals not to speak up on the matter (basically conform through assimilation).
It was just heartbreaking none the less to see a friend mourn the loss of one of hers.
I may not say it openly because sometimes I feel my sensibilities are needlessly shocked at times, but I still support LGBTQ peeps. I get their kinks. They love just like the rest of us, they’re not afraid to explore and express their sexuality like most of us are making them fearless in a sense, and because I see them as normal everyday humans, I recognize their pain when they suffer loss.