benchmarkist

[flagged]

I don't eat meat and don't drive cars. How about you?

The universe does not have a finite symbolic description. Whatever meaning you attribute to the symbols has no objective reality beyond how people interpret those symbols. Same is true for the arithmetic performed by neural networks to flash lights on the screen which people interpret as meaningful messages.

How about we leave the silk worms alone.

Humans currently produce industrial poisons on an unimaginable scale so you're not far off.

Yet another instance of how people view the biosphere as a resource to be exploited for their own monetary profit and short-term benefit. That type of logic and thinking is a dead end. I've never had a silk robe and I doubt I would be any better off if I did have one. I'd much prefer clean air, water, and unpoisoned land for growing nutritious food.

The function/mathematics in an NN (neural network) is meaningless unless there is an outside observer to attribute meaning to it. There is no such thing as a meaningful mathematical expression without a conscious observer to give it meaning. Fundamentally there is no objective difference between one instance of a NN with one parameter, f(θ), evaluated on some input, f(θ)(x), and another instance of the same network with a small perturbation of the parameter, f(θ+ε), evaluated on the same input, f(θ+ε)(x), unless a conscious observer perceives the output and attributes meaning to the differences because the arithmetic operations performed by the network are the same in both networks in terms of their objective complexity and energy utilization.

It's a good essay but you didn't address my point.

How does math encode meaning if there is no Alice and Bob? You should quickly realize the absurdity of your argument once you take people out of the equation.

Here you go: https://g.co/gemini/share/852449bad133

And how do they do that? Be very specific.

I don't think there is any real value in making videos other than useless entertainment. The real inspired use of computation and AI is to cure cancer, that would be the right way to show the world that this technology is worthwhile and useful. The techniques involved would be the same because one would need to include real physical constraints like conservation of mass and energy instead of figuring out the best way to flash lights on the screen with no regard for any foundational physical principles.

Do you know anyone or any companies working on that?

I guess we'll never know.

I'd be embarrassed if I was a physicists and my name was associated with software that had phantom masses appearing and disappearing into the void.

My price is very cheap in terms of what it would enable and allow OpenAI to charge their customers. Hamiltonian video generation with conservation principles which do not have phantom masses appearing and disappearing out of nowhere is a billion dollar industry so my asking price is basically giving away the entire industry for free.

Unless you have $500k to pay for the actual implementation of a Hamiltonian video generator then I don't think you're in a position to tell me what I know and don't know.

Ok, have a good one dude.

It's not worth anything to me but I'm sure OpenAI would be willing to pay a lot of money for opening up the market of video generators with realistic physical evolution. If they want to hire an ultra genius such as myself to do the work then it would be worth at least $500k to them so that's basically the floor for anyone else who wants the actual details. The actual market would be worth billions so I'm basically giving the idea away at that price.

You too but if you do want to learn the basics then here's one good reference: https://www.amazon.com/Hamiltonian-Dynamics-Gaetano-Vilasi/d.... If you already know the basics then this is a good followup: https://www.amazon.com/Integrable-Hamiltonian-Systems-Geomet.... The books are much cheaper than paying someone like me to do the implementation.

Why would I give away the idea for free? How much do you want to pay for the implementation?

No one is perfect but you should try to do better and waste less time on HN now that you're aware and can act on that knowledge.

I've seen the quality of OpenAI engineers on Twitter and it's easy enough to extrapolate. Moreoever, neural networks are not black boxes, you're just parroting whatever you've heard on social media. The underlying theory is very simple.

I don't work there so I'm certain there is no one with enough knowledge to make it work with Hamiltonian constraints because the idea is very obvious but they haven't done it because they don't have the wherewithal to do so. In other words, no one at OpenAI understands enough basic physics to incorporate conservation principles into the generative network so that objects with random masses don't appear and disappear on the "video" manifold as it evolves in time.

Neural networks use smooth manifolds as their underlying inductive bias so in theory it should be possible to incorporate smooth kinematic and Hamiltonian constraints but I am certain no one at OpenAI actually understands enough of the theory to figure out how to do that.

The universe is not a Markov chain, in fact, no one knows what it is but locally we do know that entropy increases and the inevitable endpoint in our corner of the universe is complete annihilation. Your preferences are completely irrelevant in the local scheme of things.

Good one but these theorems are useful to have when thinking about information processing systems and whatever promises the hype artists are making about the latest and greatest iteration of neural networks. There is no way to cheat entropy and basic physics so if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is too good to be true.

Also the data processing inequality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_processing_inequality?use...

This is intuitively obvious. If I give you some data x and you transform it with a non-reversible function f into f(x) then you are losing information. Repeated applications of the function, f(f(f(...f(x)...))), can only make the end result worse. The current implementations inject some random bits, b ~ N(u, s), but this can be thought of as a convolution operation with the distribution function g of the random data, g*f, that is injected which, after repeated applications, (g*f)((g*f)((g*f)(...(g*f)(x)...))), reduces the information content of the data you started with because the transformation is still not reversible as convolutions can not really change the non-reversible aspect of the original function.

I'm sure there is some calculation using entropy of random variables and channels that fully formalizes this but I don't remember the references off the top of my head. The general reference I remember is called the data processing inequality.¹

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_processing_inequality?use...

Fiat means faith and that's all you have with bitcoin, faith in the algorithms that make the ledger very hard to mutate without spending the required "effort" to "mint" the entries on the ledger. You can believe whatever you want but as I said previously you're better off convincing people to sell you services for your bitcoins instead of arguing with random strangers on the internet about cryptographic hashing functions.