The ultimate test is having them draw a picture. If they can visualize imagery then they should be an excellent artist. If they are bad at drawing, then they must have aphantasia.
I mean, I can look at something physically in front of me, like a still life, all I want and still draw it like shit. So I'm not sure what that would prove?
You would be able to reproduce the object very accurately, given enough time. You can simply continuously refine the drawing by comparing the drawing to the object.
If you do not "have it" and you are unable to reproduce the imagery you see in your mind's eye using a pencil on paper, then that is clarifying. Whatever you consider to be visualization is not even close to the same as actually seeing something. If whatever you experience was a "vivid visualization", then you would be able to reproduce it drawing.
I personally don't experience anything that I would consider "visualization", and I am also terrible at drawing, but I can reproduce a photorealistic drawing of a photograph if I am allowed to look at the photograph while drawing.
I think you are confusing two separate issues. I struggle to do still life as well, when the subject is right in front of me. That's not due to eyesight problems. My visualisation is not perfect but is much better than anything I can draw. However, when I have taken art classes and I practised, my skills improved... Much like music or chess. If I stop practising drawing then my skills deteriorate.
I can write about things in far more detail than I can draw them. Both from my imagination and sometimes memory. I can remember the floor plan of certain buildings I haven't set foot in for over thirty years. (Or at least the parts I had access to.) I can remember which direction they are orientated in, and where the sun rose and set in relation to them. As me to do a drawing, as opposed to a diagram, and I will struggle due to poor art skills.
My drawing skills are more to do with the fact I have mild dyspraxia than my ability to visualise. My handwriting is pretty atrocious too for similar reasons. My visualisation skills are far from perfect but still much better than anything I can draw.
Each token affects the probabilities of subsequent tokens. Let's say you want the model to produce Python code, and you are using a grammar to force JSON output. The model wasn't trained on JSON-serialized Python code. It was trained on normal Python code with real newlines. Wouldn't forcing JSON impair output quality in this case?
The defining characteristic of science is that one can independently arrive at a logical conclusion by observing cause and effect. There is no belief or indoctrination necessary. Having faith in science is an oxymoron (although it's all too common).
> The defining characteristic of science is that one can independently arrive at a logical conclusion by observing cause and effect.
I'm not sure it's about observation of cause and effect. There are excellent youtube videos about the strangeness of time and how cause and effect are convenience terms. Reason is the basis for science, which we construct practices around that are effective in describing the physical universe.
Having a unique characteristic is not sufficient to differentiate a practice that serves the same purpose as any other religion. Other religions are more sociologically founded and aimed, but they serve a similar niche.
ie There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact (although many have died trying), given the wealth of knowledge that exists and extreme costs to even perform the experiments. Faith in science is not an oxymoron, unless you want to define faith tautologically, to assert it is so.
Predictable reliable cause and effect is entirely sufficient to cleanly differentiate science from religions that have no such demonstrable experiments.
> There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact
They're documented - pick one that ionterests you and lets go on the reproduction.
Can we say the same about any "fact" of a religion? - WE can about the bulk facts in science.
> > There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact
> They're documented - pick one that ionterests you and lets go on the reproduction.
In all fairness, I made a straightforward statement and you have assumed I said something else - I did not say any single scientific "fact". This is not the point that I was making (trying to disprove a fact).
> Can we say the same about any "fact" of a religion?
You're getting into the weeds here. If I have a religion that's called AlmostScience that includes a fairy tale that teaches morality but otherwise teaches the history and practices of the scientific method. Is it not a religion? I'm making an equivalence claim and you're attacking details of a strawman religion.
The constructor of std::string is constexpr in C++20. A runtime call to 'strlen' (or equivalent) can be optimized out by computing the string's length at compile time and initializing the object accordingly.
In the absence of IDE features, you can't differentiate between value arguments and reference arguments unless you view the callee's prototype. Pointers do not have this problem.
In the absence of IDE features, you also can't differentiate between a function taking a pointer and a const pointer. You must be aware in all cases that the value that you pass to the function may be modified. Yes, the function would not be modifying the pointer itself, but the outcome is exactly the same. A reference is pretty much equal to a non-nullable pointer in this context.
> In the absence of IDE features, you also can't differentiate between a function taking a pointer and a const pointer.
So? It still helps me with decoding `foo(bar, baz)`, as without the `&` I KNOW that bar and baz would not change after the call. And since both bar and baz are in the local scope, I already know whether they are pointers or not.
With pointers, all the information necessary to determine if bar and baz would change after a call to foo is in the local scope. With references that information is elsewhere.
Another biblical example is Psalm 90:10: "Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures; yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away."
Member functions have an invisible argument: the pointer to the C++ object. You can access this argument using the 'this' keyword. John Carmack describes pure functions like so:
> Pure functions have a lot of nice properties. Thread safety. A pure function with value parameters is completely thread safe. With reference or pointer parameters, even if they are const, you do need to be aware of the danger that another thread doing non-pure operations might mutate or free the data, but it is still one of the most powerful tools for writing safe multithreaded code.
Emphasis on 'value parameters'. The invisible 'this' argument is not passed by value, it is passed by reference. By Carmack's definition, C++ member functions are not pure.
