MarkusQ

35 ms·

661.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
You are misreading the article. At a guess, you have come into it "knowing what a vector is" from physics or computer science. Specifically, a vector is not "a sequence of reals", it is any object that obeys a certain
662.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Sure? What is the analog to this other frame of reference in the evolution case though? Or are you just stepping out of the analogy's applicability range to show that it can be pushed too far (which is of course true of an analogy)?
663.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
> synthesizing nitrogen analogues through hydrogen-based pathways What does this even mean? Transmutation?
664.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
That argument always struck me as vacuous. Dump a barrel of ball bearings on the top of a craggy hill. Wait as they all bounce around, some getting stuck in local minima and some bouncing over obstacles and covering large distances. Would
665.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Another useful trick: plot the same data several ways (e.g. if you were playing with Moore's law you might plot (log) {transistors/cm²,"ops/sec","clock speed","ops/sec/$" etc.} their in
666.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
It's a mirror, for gosh sakes. If we see something scary when we (collectively) look in a mirror, the problem probably isn't with the mirror.
667.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Incomplete, perhaps, and vastly oversimplified, but not "completely wrong"; the more genetic evidence we get, the more it appears that ancient people moved around much more than we used to think. https://www.cell.com&#x
668.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Recently had a conversation of space based solar power pros and cons screech to a halt when someone said "Well what about space based geothermal?"
669.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
This reminds me of the predator hierarchy (for example, see Colinvaux's "Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare"): the reinsurers spread the risk from various insurers and for various catastrophes around among a pool of meta-insurer
670.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
If that's what's bothering you, I can put your mind at ease by pointing out the absurdity of our world today. Half the news you read is, in fact, part of a coordinated political agenda. Once you've absorbed that and come to
671.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
This reads like the "Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge" list of animals, but for games.
672.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
32/36 too. Having very local/niche events (especially near the end, when there are lots of places to go wrong) makes it feel unballanced. If you wanted to make the game more strategic and less "gotcha," you might want t
673.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Yeah, I'd agree with you. I think everybody in that loop is going to learn an expensive lesson. But (and this is an important "but"): I could be wrong. In which case, I'll learn a lesson instead by watching them show m
674.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
<tired old fart voice> It's all cleaning up slop code. Always has been. </tired old fart voice> More optimistically, you can think of "user created code" as an attempt at a design document of sorts; they wer
675.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Conversely, it may create jobs. Why? Because the more elephants you have in your parade, the more jobs there are for folks to walk behind them with a broom and bucket. For decades we've seen tools that "let users write their ow
676.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
To be clear, I was role playing an efficient market fundamentalist. Or trying to. And (trying to steelman the argument) was careful to not specify which group of people were making the bad decisions. It is obvious that at least one side o
677.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Ok, I'll take a stab at it. Suppose you had a bunch of decisions that needed to be made, and you would rather that (on average) they were made by smart people rather than dumb people. So you set up a system of tokens, where people wit
678.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
The people trying to show that LLMs don't think are working too hard. It's trivially easy, imho: https://chatgpt.com/share/68504396-e300-800c-a7ff-dde5fe1572...
679.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Could be. Someone hallucinated the arXive reference for the Apple paper.
680.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Voting me down doesn't change the fact that group selection is a myth. A myth that some people are fervently attached to, but a myth nonetheless. Groups simply don't reproduce at a rate or fidelity to allow evolution at the grou
681.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Which is to say, maladaptive. Despite all the people wishing evolution worked at the group level, it doesn't. Groups don't have offspring, individuals do, and thus things that are bad for the individual are extinguished regardle
682.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
To be honest, I had the same reaction when I started using high-level languages. I wasn't touching the metal (certainly not as much as I had been when solving problems sometimes involved things like repurposing unused bits on a multip
683.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
> Should we suggest that everyone learn how to money launder to even the playing field against criminals? Certainly. We should also teach them how phishing scams work, and about confirmation bias, high pressure sales tactics, phantom li
684.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
And the carefully checked textbooks are just as full of factually incorrect information. If you doubt this, look at any textbook from 50+ years ago; they were also carefully checked--more so than today's--and yet contained many things
685.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
That's because research had already become "look up the answer somebody else found" years ago. If you want to force they to do real research, ask them things no AI knows because no one knows. Ask them to find the exact cent
686.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
It's also because in the interest rate range we're normally dealing with (5%-10% APR) the approximation of 1+x/100 as 1.01^x in the derivation of the rule is off a bit, and something like 1.0097^x works somewhat better. ln(2
687.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
But it's a reticulating structure; yes, the graph is directed / partially ordered, but it's certainly not tree-like. The key property of real trees is that they _branch_ and the branches don't recombine.
688.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
This feeling isn't uncommon, nor is the pattern that produces it. Any time something new crosses a certain threshold the band wagon effect kicks in, it seems to be everywhere for a while, and then... life goes on (sorry doomers).
689.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
c.f. The Candymakers, W. Mass et al
690.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
It was...easier? If your intent is ship-once working software, you write towards that goal. You use fewer dependencies, and they are all effectively version locked. It's like putting books in a box. You put them in the way you expec

More ›