adastra22

5 ms·

61.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Transistors connect to other transistors, directly or in switched arrangements. Qubits can be connected to other qubits likewise. E.g. a single photon emitter next to a nuclear spin qubit that can send an entangled photon through a beam spl
62.
by adastra22 1mo ago
You don't know that. We're at the point where the NSA can assuredly break RSA-1024. We know they have sufficient processing power, and it would be silly of them not to have developed that capability. "But they're not goi
63.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Start with the Dad jokes. That's the gateway to gender freedom in parenting!
64.
by adastra22 1mo ago
RSA-1024 is approx 6 bits more security than the RSA-260 challenge, so ~64x more work to factor. That is negligible by cryptographic standards. We don't know yet how much work OP put into factoring the RSA-260 challenge. No doubt it wa
65.
by adastra22 1mo ago
It's more akin to "we only need to make reliable transistors to make classical computers." With the invention of the planar transistor, going from 1 transistor to 100 or 100k was not that big of a step, comparatively.
66.
by adastra22 1mo ago
RSA-1024 absolutely is not.
67.
by adastra22 1mo ago
RSA-260 has a 862 bit key. In terms of work, a 1024 bit key is only about 50-100x more work to break than the factorization posted in TFA.
68.
by adastra22 1mo ago
We only need the ability to make make 1 qubit with indefinite reliable / fully error corrected state. Quantum interconnects would allow for these to be connected into arbitrarily large quantum computers.
69.
by adastra22 1mo ago
It wasn’t. The person that posted the factorization has nothing to do with Anthropic, and has for many years held the leaderboard on GPU-hours applied to factorization and prime search problems. He’s not yet on record as to how this one was
70.
by adastra22 1mo ago
That’s a work of fiction.
71.
by adastra22 1mo ago
I don't even know what you are arguing for.
72.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Mornings? Long-wave radio?
73.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Whatever the people who came up with IQ intended isn’t really relevant to the question of whether IQ measures intellect. At best is is loosely correlated. Very loosely.
74.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Intelligence is problem solving. It can be defined in terms of optimization theory.
75.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Reference class in this case means not an example but what the comparison is against. Superhuman means better than humans. General intelligence is defined without any reference to human capability levels.
76.
by adastra22 1mo ago
It’s better to call a spade a spade.
77.
by adastra22 1mo ago
That’s already been done. I know of at least one novel result contributed by Claude to frontier physics. I’m sure there is more.
78.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Why not?
79.
by adastra22 1mo ago
There was symbolic AI programs in the 1980’s that “discovered” Kepler’s laws and the resulting solar system model from just tycho brache’s astronomical observations. That was the the very first “new physics” ever.
80.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Artificial. General. Intelligence. The ability to solve (even partially or even badly solve) problems drawn from arbitrary problem domains without pretraining on the specific problem class. You can pose any problem of any type using natural
81.
by adastra22 1mo ago
We've had AGI (artificial general intelligence) probably since the first release of ChatGPT, and certainly since the first agentic harnesses. They're just finally acknowledging what the term means.
82.
by adastra22 1mo ago
A WebX technology that actually involves browsers!
83.
by adastra22 1mo ago
In many fields the limitation is not thinking. In my field (particularly obscure UHV surface science) we are limited by experimental results, and that experimental data is limited by the number of operable machines in particular configurati
84.
by adastra22 1mo ago
I've tried with each frontier release and gotten junk results. Even Fable 5 is just pattern matching against representative stuff in its training set, which for frontier science is definitionally incorrect.
85.
by adastra22 1mo ago
We are not limited by intelligence, or bodies.
86.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Outside of biology, very very little.
87.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Thank you. This is what I'm driving at, that most of the AI and software devs here seem to be missing. Intelligence is not, and never was the bottleneck for most science/hard tech. Full AGI gets, at best, a small productivity impr
88.
by adastra22 1mo ago
The field I'm in requires millions of dollars of very sensitive (fragile) capital equipment, and latencies measured in weeks and months. Agents tend to move fast and break things, which matters less when you are writing code under vers
89.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Yes, but that should apply to the CoT "thinking", not the final output.
90.
by adastra22 1mo ago
As someone working in science, this belief confuses me. How (by what means) do you think Fable 5.1 will be able to make further progress in scientific domains? The problem with science is that there is no agentic harness. The agent can&#x27

More ›