Mithriil
Mithriil on Hacker News
A quarter were asked. That seems like a lot.
It does seem a bit of a fortuitous timing, with Anthropic IPO S-1 just dropping..
Fun puzzles. I feel like gates are hard to distinguish from one another, except for the rotation and translation ones.
In Québec, you have special orders for Dentists, Physicians, Psychologists, etc., so as to protect the clients. (Although the physicians's order now protects physicians pretty intensively now... The optometrist's and dentist's orders are still doing a very good job.) I don't think we get this kind of situations here.
This is a too simplistic analogy of economy. The source of "money" is not people, it's trade (read "On Money" by David Hume (1752)), which always happened between people, but not only anymore. Examples of this: trade bots, smart contracts (which are just programs managing money).
Maybe we should start talking about open-washing (like green-washing is to ecological statements).
Very interesting. I think it needs to be clear that the fundamental theories (dependent type theory) is very much grounded. It's at the practical implementation of Lean4 that the critic aims at.
GIS is niche and technically difficult enough that I doubt your comment is right.
"Value" of a PR is somewhat overlooking the fact that it's code we're talking about. A great and large feature with terrible bugs has some "value", but you definitely don't want to review that PR for nothing, because it definitely won't be accepted.
What's almost certainly true is the amount of insanity he encountered at Anthropic.
They do speak of the gravitational singularity (not the event horizon). It's within the horizon, there is a contradiction between the need for two infallers' position to reach the singularity (thus hitting a point) and the causal impossibility of them actually meeting (following General Relativity?). This suggests that the point should maybe be a surface.
I don't follow most of the arguments however.
The first 1 star comment on the "YEREADW USB-C Tester Power Meter" marketed here is worrisome:
> HOWEVER, the issue is that, for some reason, on some devices, it seems to mess with PD negotiation. On chargers that I know can output 15V, it will not negotiate to 15V, it will only charge the device at 5V 3A.
Say you've got a set of 5 points that are not all collinear (e.g. everytime you draw a line, you never get all 5 of them). Now every time you try to draw a line between two points, you always end up with a third one. Can this happen?
This is what is stated here: there always exists at least a pair where this does not happen.
Also, see the title of the website.
Not necessarily. Selling a tool doesn't incur the same risks as using it, not at all.
I understand the point that the physical world is still our (human's) anchor, but the virtual world still "exists" anyway, as in: it impacts the physical world.
Whether some humans are "Real humans", anchored in the physical world, and some are "LLM psychosis victims" is, in itself, not problematic I think: they each deal with parts of reality that are divided, but still affect one another.
Of course, a society more grounded in the physical would feel less dystopian... But ultimately, I think that GA is an intellectual's approach to fighting *for* humans in this numerical world.
I don't think that GA would be incapable of that, from what I know of LLMs and agents. The part where you make the GA uphold your set of values could, instead of coming from an individual, come from a collective. Price could be shared too!
(Oh wait, is this the birth of AI mayors?)
One of the example Gwern brings [1] is a GA as an agent for public discourse and political life, to bring your "set of values" to have an effect in solving society's issues, when you yourself don't have the time or energy to.
I don't think it solves or reconciles with self-actualization, but, from a pragmatical point of view, it offers the promise of extending causally your set of views and philosophies to politics.
Gwern also mentions that it allows to keep "human values" (if the GA truly upholds yours) in the loop, in processes that are to eventually be automatized beyond human's reach.
[1] https://gwern.net/guardian-angel#use-cases-politics-politics
Even if pi is an approximation, it is still representable mathematically. Floating-point arithmetic is an algebra (in this case, a magma [1]), which can be studied mathematically.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma_(algebra)
And yet, open source models saved the day.
Some people do read these cyberpunk dystopia, but see them as inevitable.
And what the author goes and shows are equalities, not tautologies.
This is of the 26th of May.
If you hold the eraser for a second at the center, I find that it destroys the image more often than not.
It's relevant to the "thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters".
'Always free' does not sound like an opinion.
The ratio of AI startups at YC surprised me... (slide 48). This is a clear trend.
> Probabilistic analysis can carry you very, very far in doing something that looks like logical inference at the surface level, but it is nonetheless not logical inference.
A statistical approximation of logical inference (as vague as I state it) could (and will) very well pass for logical inference, at least for the common people, whose logic skills are far from perfect.
Also, humans are certainly not capable of the perfect logical inference you speak of. And I get the irony of what I'm saying with such certitude. Logic is still framed in axioms that are framed in languages, we'll never truly get there. Ah, but absoluteness gets in the way of practicality.
Yet, here we are with a tool, that is maybe not at its prime yet, that equals and beat many human beings at logical inference on some problems that are pragmatically relevant. Should I say symptoms of logical inference at that point?
As to why LLMs capacity for (apparent) logical inference is only limited to specific use cases, I don't have a clue. But I'd like to argue that, humans are like that too.
> nobody understands the fundamentals
Funny statement to be found in the discussion about... research results on the fundamentals.
Asymptotics has been used to validate tons of statistical tools. This is just another tool being validated.
If you have a tool that you don't know works when data increases (n-> infinity), then you shouldn't use it.
So practicaly, I believe it has serious implications.
I don't think that this is true. You need an infinite number of dimensions for this (think Taylor's expansion, Fourier expansion, infinitely wide or deep NNs..)