> The contribution of this work lies in its move from critique to measurement. It proposes concrete methods: recursive summarization chains, metaphor stress-tests, resonance surveys, and noise-infused retrieval experiments. These allow researchers to track how meaning erodes over time. By integrating these methods, it outlines a pathway toward fidelity-centered benchmarks that complement existing accuracy metrics.
To me, starting to solve the problem by meticulously measuring it, is a sign of a good solution.
There's another great meta-game similar to this. You can play it alone or with friends. It doesn't require any cards or dices, although can be played with them too.
The rules are simple. You join some group, that is playing a game, rules of which you don't know. Yet, you say to everyone, that you know the rules.
Now, your goal is to play as long as possible, before they figure out, that you actually don't know the rules.
Bonus points, if you convince others that it's THEY, who don't know the rules.
This seems incomplete, as in many games, one player winning does not interrupt the game. You're just first to leave the table, but others keep playing for 2nd, 3rd, and up to nth (last) place.
> Most Haskell tutorials on the web seem to take a language-reference-manual
approach to teaching. They show you the syntax of the language, a few language
constructs, and then have you construct a few simple functions at the interactive
prompt. The “hard stuff” of how to write a functioning, useful program is left
to the end, or sometimes omitted entirely.
I feel like this is such an issue with lots of languages. Learning your second, third, and so on language is in some sense harder, because “Getting started” tutorials spend too much time on simple concepts, and the hard part of “How do I write X (or what do I do instead)” is usually missing.
It recently occurred to me, that you can find exercises for almost any popular language, and I feel like it is the solution to the problem.
> This tutorial takes a different tack. You’ll start off with command-line arguments and parsing, and progress to writing a fully-functional Scheme interpreter
that implements a good-sized subset of R5RS Scheme. Along the way, you’ll
learn Haskell’s I/O, mutable state, dynamic typing, error handling, and parsing
features. By the time you finish, you should be fairly fluent in both Haskell and
Scheme.
There's not enough tutorials like that in the world
Fun fact: there's A LOT of blue apps, and almost none are purple.
reply