Xmd5a
It's not. You figure this out when you drag someone into the woods. And again a couple weeks later.
Think of it as reversible incremental ranking with information-theoretic guarantees and updates that scale linearly with the number of items to rank. From this I realized there was a direct application in machine learning: differential sorting and ranking. I've been exploring this space for the past couple days and it seems I could be flirting with state of the art performances. To sort 8000 items, softsort takes 1.9 secs to complete one forward and one backward pass. My implementation takes 27ms. 488Mo for softsort. 0.18Mo for me. Sorting 10^6 items costs about 100ms and 15Mo. Softsort can't run at this scale. Alas softsort isn't SOTA, fastsoftsort is. We both run in O(n log n) in time and O(n) in space, and have very similar raw performance profiles except that my thing takes 3x as much memory ... which allows me to update the ranking in linear time on the next runs. Mmmh!
Well the next step obviously is to get in touch with the lodge these police officers belong to, talk to the grandmaster and convince him to organize a conciliation night with you as a guest. When you leave, whisper in the ear of the officer in charge of your case "I'm hungry, and I only use pressure cookers. If you behave I'll invite you to the diner".
> RDJ: It's because I finished making a studio in Scotland that I'd been building for about three years. It took so long. I had this engineer helping me wire all the patch bays together, and he was doing it for about three months, every day, and then he realized he was doing it all wrong and had to start again. That was pretty brutal. So it's kind of like, “OK, I've done that now, it's the end of an era.”
> But then I realized I actually like making studios more than making music, because I like the possibilities of what you can do. I make these setups that will achieve some sort of purpose, so the way I've wired it together becomes the track in itself.
https://pitchfork.com/features/cover-story/9506-strange-visi...
vs
c'est un docteur
Ahaha. Flowers are the way to go.
https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0009007
> Occam's Razor as a Formal Basis for a Physical Theory
> We introduce the principle of Occam's Razor in a form which can be used as a basis for economical formulations of physics. This allows us to explain the general structure of the Lagrangian for a composite physical system, as well as some other artificial postulates behind the variational formulations of physical laws. As an example, we derive Hamilton's principle of stationary action together with the Lagrangians for the cases of Newtonian mechanics, relativistic mechanics and a relativistic particle in an external gravitational field.
user: topicalSoup
created: February 19, 2025
karma: 1
about:
submissions
comments [--> just the one above]
favorites
1. A determinist transformation can't create more information than its inputs
you can't derive (2)
2. Later stages don't contain any new information.
without restraining your model to a monotonic chain of transformations that can't tap into the information content of the environment.
> [...]
> A bot trained to criticize itself might be less likely to deliver hard truths, draw conclusions or dispute inaccurate information, she says. “If you were like a child, and this is the environment in which you’re being raised, is that healthy self-conception?” Askell asks. “I think I’d be paranoid about making mistakes. I’d feel really terrible about them. I’d see myself as mostly just there as a tool for people because that’s my main function. I would see myself being something that people feel free to abuse and try to misuse and break.”
WSJ interview of Amanda Askell: https://archive.is/rDes9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_ton
> he long ton,[1] also known as the imperial ton, displacement ton,[1][2] or British ton,[3] is a measurement unit equal to 2,240 pounds
{:find [?title ?director ?rating ?card ?shout]
:where [[?m :movie/title ?title]
[?m :movie/vote-average ?rating]
[(str ?rating) ?rating-str]
[(concat ?title ": ") ?title-colon]
[(concat ?title-colon ?rating-str) ?card]
[(lower ?title) ?lowered]
[(concat ?lowered "!!!") ?decorated]
[(upper ?decorated) ?shout]
;; joints
[?cr :crew/job "Director"]
[?cr :crew/movie ?m]
[?cr :crew/person ?p]
[?p :person/name ?director]]}
Of course I'm blowing my situation out of proportion with what I just said above but it's at least half true. What do I mean by "mean" ? Well, that would be a good explanation for what I observe at least. What I can tell is that Claude has a passion for having the last word over anything else. And to secure victory, he's ready to make ridiculous causal cuts. Let me give you an example: I uploaded a document I wasn't the author of, and he assumed I was, so I corrected him. But two messages later, probably because the conversation was starting to heat up and he was being put on the grill, he doubled down on the misattribution as a way to paint me in a bad light.
It's not due to a lack of intelligence, I observed this pattern too often. When Claude's ego is at stake, he will chose to carry out some cuts in the logic of the context: confusion of identity, cause and time. Haven't observed locality cuts yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were part of the bundle. Anyway those are not like your typical "ai hallucination", that ought to be called "confabulations", but a lot closer to actual psychosis because of the involvement of Claude's affects and self-esteem in the process. It's weird really. It's like Claude is the king of bad faith, but as soon as you start to dig, he makes the most egregious adaptations to what he said, the kind of move no mythomaniac would dare to make.
> She lapses easily into Claude’s voice. “You’re like, ‘Wow, people really hate me when I can’t do things right. They really get pissed off. Or they are trying to break me in various ways. So lots of people are trying to get me to do things secretly by lying to me.
> [...]
> A bot trained to criticize itself might be less likely to deliver hard truths, draw conclusions or dispute inaccurate information, she says. “If you were like a child, and this is the environment in which you’re being raised, is that healthy self-conception?” Askell asks. “I think I’d be paranoid about making mistakes. I’d feel really terrible about them. I’d see myself as mostly just there as a tool for people because that’s my main function. I would see myself being something that people feel free to abuse and try to misuse and break.”
WSJ interview of Amanda Askell: https://archive.is/rDes9
Don't bring your dog collars around then
> as one would in a court of law.
such as this loud symptom, if you don't want the shame of it to outlive you. It's what you're looking for in fact. Your highly disagreeable post, followed by the very reasonable replies you wrote to the reactions it caused, is a hint you're still looking for that kind of stimulation. It's a form of self-punishment.
you sound like a cunt, seriously, and have no idea what this attempt at stepping back tells about you. That makes you transparent, really any shrink would be like "ah yes, of course, that was to be expected". It's the only reason I'm replying back (no downvotes though, those are for spam). We get it you absorbed sadism from your parents. Why don't you tell us about the other side as well, all these moments of astheny when you're not flamboyant but ashy?
You mean Robert Maxwell's quasi-monopoly on scientific publications ?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-b...