5 ms·

I love how you said so much and yet replied to practically none of my comment. Kudos. Also, you need to work on a better differentiator than "I can explain pre

I love how you said so much and yet replied to practically none of my comment. Kudos. Also, you need to work on a better differentiator than "I can explain precisely how that works", especially if you proceed to not do just that. I also doubt you can, but that's a whole separate topic.

nemo44x 4y ago
It’s a computer program. Written by people. Using maths created by humans. To you it’s magic because you don’t have knowledge of these things. It’s a profound technology (transformers) at a huge scale. But it’s not magic. It’s not human. Or anything like it. Or scalable of it. It’s a computer program running on classical architecture. There are no mysteries here.
- ta8645 4y ago
  > It’s a computer program. Written by people. Using maths created by humans. And you're a human program, written in meat, by natural selection. To you it's magic, but viewed on a long enough timeline, with enough insight, and you're no more mysterious than a computer program.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Really? Calling someone an imbecile is your idea of a good comment?
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  Gotta love adding “you’re just not smart enough to understand it” to the list of ways you’ve shut down conversations. You’re going for a hat trick, aren’t you?
- wrycoder 4y ago
  The program you reference defines a system that is isomorphic to a neural network with feedback and feedforward. The system is somewhat similar to a human brain. No one is writing a program that is running on the CNN. No one can describe exactly how it produces the results it does or why there appears to be emergent behavior. Your view of these systems is not fully developed.

nemo44x 4y ago

It’s a computer program. Written by people. Using maths created by humans. To you it’s magic because you don’t have knowledge of these things. It’s a profound technology (transformers) at a huge scale. But it’s not magic. It’s not human. Or anything like it. Or scalable of it. It’s a computer program running on classical architecture. There are no mysteries here.

ta8645 4y ago
> It’s a computer program. Written by people. Using maths created by humans. And you're a human program, written in meat, by natural selection. To you it's magic, but viewed on a long enough timeline, with enough insight, and you're no more mysterious than a computer program.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Really? Calling someone an imbecile is your idea of a good comment?
mynameisvlad 4y ago
Gotta love adding “you’re just not smart enough to understand it” to the list of ways you’ve shut down conversations. You’re going for a hat trick, aren’t you?
wrycoder 4y ago
The program you reference defines a system that is isomorphic to a neural network with feedback and feedforward. The system is somewhat similar to a human brain. No one is writing a program that is running on the CNN. No one can describe exactly how it produces the results it does or why there appears to be emergent behavior. Your view of these systems is not fully developed.