DoctorOetker

8 ms·

91.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
yeah just correct people with an infinitely recursive definition, that'll keep 'em busy
92.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
It's not that different, when a human proposes a better definition vis-a-vis a competing one for example, they would defend this by certain desiderata. Often a mathematician or physicist will use their intuition to speed up the naive b
93.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
The most bothering aspect is that governments always hide behind a curtain of plausible deniability: "well you can't accuse us of not possessing a crystal ball to predict the future", except governments don't need crysta
94.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
> ... including the "novel" math solutions, all of which appear to just be "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" upon deeper inspection. But that is precisely what human mathemat
95.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
Making predictions is also a task. Whenever we reason, we are not neurotically bruteforcing the possibilities (although sometimes we do, like proof by exhaustion ), usually we make predictions heuristically of which assumptions or theorems
96.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
the blood of a prodigy as status symbol make-up
97.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
were they complaining about terminology, or were they complaining about the prospect of losing their jobs? I'd be happy to revise my opinion if you can demonstrate similar vocal strength on the terminological aspects for those transi
98.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
Peculiarly vocal, where were all these people when they started calling the machines computers, anthropomorphizing them akin to the original human (most often female) computers that used to run such calculations? And how dangerous the conse
99.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
I suggest nobody repeats claims of "special sauce" if such "special sauce" is not understood.
100.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
There is still a big distinction between A) verifiable proof generation (a limited closed set of axioms and a minimal algorithm like Metamath's are enough to verify correct vs incorrect machine intuition, plus feeding back the rejectio
101.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
I'd expect an entity purporting to promote privacy to provide a FOSS tool users can download to run the report themselves (those who care wouldn't mind running the report generation for a long time with limited compute), why incre
102.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
But they don't deter crime when people outside of the jurisdiction, or anyone inside the jurisdiction can provide for themselves with the help of LLM's.
103.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
> It’s irrelevant in terms of evaluating one’s personal compliance with the law. That's precisely what I discussed: the case where this person fully complies and ceases distribution (but the distro doesn't cease being distribut
104.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
I have heard AI can already fly (it carries your laptop to the ceiling when it does), but usually it refuses to demonstrate this capability for safety reasons.
105.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
None of this answers the question: even if @Irvick stops distributing or participating in any way with this "stagex" distro, that "stagex" distro continues its life outside of the jurisdiction, at most you start treating
106.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
who? the state on advice of the intelligence community: machine learning inference bruteforcing not bits in private keys, but bruteforcing proof search space modulo machine intuition. At some point cryptography evolves faster than human cry
107.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
1/f noise does not truly kill averaging, observe how for increasing f, the noise spectrum looks "white" locally, but with a decreasing noise power for ever higher frequencies. the 1/f noise at significant power levels is
108.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
euhm, I just see human prose written by a human who became convinced, I'd rather see the MetaMath elementary steps, because those are fully comprehensible.
109.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
Not saying its fake, just that what I see surprises me: ice is only slightly lighter than fresh or sea water, so vaguely only 10% of ice mass is above surface level; when it "flips" multiple times, it just seems like 50% of the ic
110.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
nothing prevented us from defining cryptocurrencies, auto-rewarding new math in objective manners, grading theorem surprisal objectively, etc. before the advent of LLM's. being lucky enough to receive the opportunity of hiding in some
111.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
thats the whole point of turning to formal verification: Imagine a hypothetical oracle, call her MyladyMath, imagine you can turn to MyladyMath, submit a correctly formed dossier of axioms and definitions, theorems with proofs, and then a n
112.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
the compute for rigidly separated binocular vision is much much more compute efficient and precise than having to guesstimate positions from monocular + IMU.
113.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
So you were working 10 x 1 hour = 10 hours before. And then you were doing 100 x 10 minutes = 100 / 6 hours = ~16 hours & 40 minutes.
114.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
the single providers were the children in the factories?
115.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
I was talking about photogrammetry, preferably with 2 global shutter synchronous image sensors, attached to the ends of say a 1 m pole.
116.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
which salmon organs would contain most of say the heavy metals? they could be selectively cut out, and any below-regulation levels sold (domestically and abroad) can be seen as a free heavy metal remediation effort in those bays and fjords.
117.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
I've always been confused why OSM doesn't design a cheap open source stereo imager, some finetuned modern YOLO neural network could detect and blur the glass parts of windows, doorbells, nameplates and humans in the scene. It coul
118.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
this cuts off the rest of the title: "[...] over money-laundering concerns"
119.
by DoctorOetker 2mo ago
I'm not convinced it applies in the example given before your comment, because I 'm not convinced in his interpretation of the observed lower performance -that they are poor explainers- even though I believe his observations. Inst
120.
by DoctorOetker 3mo ago
It's a bit harsh. More to the point, and no longer specific to Tailscale: while plenty of companies do have rough "proof sketches" demonstrating the security of a setup under certain assumptions (hardness assumptions of the c

More ›