Veedrac

42 ms·

451.
by Veedrac 6y ago
TFLOPS-equivalent-with-sparsity is not real TFLOPS. The article compared to A100's 312 TFLOPS which is much more reasonable.
452.
by Veedrac 6y ago
I much prefer SNeRG's subtitle, Baking Neural Radiance Fields for Real-Time View Synthesis . These techniques are cool but it's very misleading to say they are ‘Real-time Rendering of Neural Radiance Fields’. No, they're rea
453.
by Veedrac 6y ago
Even traditional manufacturers are on it; Hyundai's IONIQ 5 is meant to have a solar option.
454.
by Veedrac 6y ago
I was more viewing this in context of the article, which goes on to micro-optimize a version with an IMO unreasonable set of assumptions. If it's instead explicitly given that this is a quick litmus test, the choices of the first pass
455.
by Veedrac 6y ago
My problem isn't that the spec is unclear, it's that the spec is silly. The task makes no sense, and selects for misusing tools. This makes it a bad interview question as given.
456.
by Veedrac 6y ago
It does irk me too. Being a programmer requires understanding the complexities hidden behind a task, and this brushes them all aside as if they don't matter. There are cases where your task is nice, simple, and well-defined, but word c
457.
by Veedrac 6y ago
Leading innovation also requires capital, high-functioning trade, education, infrastructure, easy access to funding, etc. It's powered by a self-reinforcing cycle of investments, of which money is only a part. It's totally legitim
458.
by Veedrac 6y ago
The bars are quartiles, so 25% of the probability mass is for ~53 years away or closer . Note that timelines for the HLMI variant of the question[1], which was asked to more people, had more like a 50% aggregate probability for 50 years aw
459.
by Veedrac 6y ago
> Do you have a timestamp for a specific quote? I don't think there's a single timestamp for this since the exact question was never asked. But the gist is very explicit in his numerous talks (which note includes both the Futu
460.
by Veedrac 6y ago
‘Full Automation of Labor (All Human Jobs)’ pretty clearly encompases AGI.
461.
by Veedrac 6y ago
Demis Hassabis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0962biiZa4 , older https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgd3OK5DZWI (NB ‘likely’ ≠ ‘>50%’, not sure what his percentage would be) I can give more but I did upst
462.
by Veedrac 6y ago
Your argument seems self-refuting, tantamount to claiming that politicians know more about fusion physics than fusion physicists do, and through illegitimate means had convinced the body of scientists that ITER and FIRE were physically soun
463.
by Veedrac 6y ago
There are nuggets of truth in here but they are combined in a way that makes no sense in net. Eg. it's true that some fusion programs are rooted in nuclear weapons work, but that cannot be easily said of ITER, because if that were the
464.
by Veedrac 6y ago
The fabricated cost estimates were extrapolated from other novel nuclear fusion projects, so doubling it would be double-counting.
465.
by Veedrac 6y ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3540 , Table 11 and Section 6.6.
466.
by Veedrac 6y ago
ITER, like many oversized government programs where funding and structure are almost entirely political, has had delays. First plasma (not full power) was originally scheduled for 2016, and is now 2025.
467.
by Veedrac 6y ago
ITER is aiming for Q>1 in 2035 IIUC, so 3x.
468.
by Veedrac 6y ago
I like to keep personal opinions out of statistical data about opinions, since they are very different qualities of argument. Any individual take doesn't meaningfully affect the distribution of opinions. The key is that there is no arg
469.
by Veedrac 6y ago
Note that a very significant fraction do believe human level machine intelligence is likely within about 50 years, and a good few on closer timescales, though the precise numbers are endlessly debatable. Two major AI corporations, DeepMind
470.
by Veedrac 6y ago
If the brain is the answer, the question involves trillions of parameters. Clearly there's more to the brain than just size, but also clearly, the brain is big for a reason. In fact scale is one of the very few things we can say for ce
471.
by Veedrac 6y ago
No, Moore's law is transistor density (technically the ‘Number of Components Per Integrated Function’) at the minimum cost per component. Since cost per transistor is still falling on newer nodes, it holds. Cost per transistor is sti
472.
by Veedrac 6y ago
Moore's Law isn't dead. Dennard scaling died, Intel's process hit a wall, and CPU architectural improvements stalled while Intel was stalling, but transistor density improvements have stayed steady year after year since 1970.
473.
by Veedrac 6y ago
Early on the focus was on the hypothetical CISC advantage, hence wanting ‘compressed’ variable-length instructions, even though the ISA hasn't ended up especially space efficient now that the actual complex stuff is legacy. But as to w
474.
by Veedrac 6y ago
> That would have made decoding simpler, though at a cost of worse density. I presume because decoding is already plenty simple, but density always helps.
475.
by Veedrac 6y ago
The issue with x86 is that instructions can be any length, and that their length is a nontrivial function of their encoding. This means there's an unavoidable sequential scan over, effectively, every byte of the input when doing decode
476.
by Veedrac 6y ago
RISC-V compressed instructions shouldn't interfere with parallel decode at all. They're extremely simple.
477.
by Veedrac 6y ago
If I've understood this article correctly, the thesis is that we should avoid trying to understand the mind, because understanding the mind is inevitably about controlling and subverting human behaviour to worse ends, and that it also
478.
by Veedrac 6y ago
Userbenchmark is pretty overtly Intel biased, to the point even /r/Intel banned them. You should use... pretty much any other review, basically. You are still right that Intel mobile is still performance competitive if you don&#x2
479.
by Veedrac 6y ago
Human brains try really hard not to be analogue.
480.
by Veedrac 6y ago
In retrospect this was a pretty poorly framed point of mine. The point about addition being harder than stated because BPEs break at arbitrary points doesn't make much sense given the previous comment of mine pointed out that GPT-3 can

More ›