andrewla

5 ms·

61.
by andrewla 2mo ago
The problem is that the technology [1] to do this simply doesn't exist. I'd say the core of the problem is that copying a digital artifact is easy, is a solved problem. You simply copy the data that represents the artifact, and no
62.
by andrewla 2mo ago
No, that's stupid. The question of how LLMs (and "LRM"'s, an unfortunate and by the article's own admission, already outdated term) accomplish what they accomplish is fascinating. The question of whether they reason
63.
by andrewla 2mo ago
I posted a link to the original context. I don't know whether you are saying that I have taken it out of context or a more general statement of how other people have interpreted the quote. To me it is quite clear -- the question of whe
64.
by andrewla 2mo ago
I'll admit that I find this discussion a bit navel-gazy. It has become a question of semantics not a question of actual functionality. The question has become "what do we mean when we use the word 'reasoning'" which
65.
by andrewla 2mo ago
My takeaway was not the involvement of the LLMs, which I consider to be irrelevant; the core was that there was an exploit of a flaw in the verification engine that allowed an incorrect proof to be validated. That is not great. In addition
66.
by andrewla 3mo ago
No, the rationals are not discrete in the usual topology. They end up being discrete when we consider continuous mappings from R->Q though. That is the "technical" sense that I refer to. The rationals, as you say, are dense in
67.
by andrewla 3mo ago
You are overestimating what real numbers buy you. pi and e and sqrt(2) are real numbers and not rational, to be sure. But they are computable! Computable just means that they are arbitrarily approximable. "approximate relative to what&
68.
by andrewla 3mo ago
Agree to disagree! Doing calculus with computable numbers is totally possible and you get all the continuity you need. You need to drop the Lebesgue formulation of the integeral and either use a Reimann integral or the gauge integral (Henst
69.
by andrewla 3mo ago
If reality is quantized and there is a smallest number that is physically relevant, you don't need the reals to break it. Take that smallest number and divide it by two, and now you have a physically meaningless number using only the r
70.
by andrewla 3mo ago
I think people overindex on the continuity problem with the reals. I'm personally a bit of real-number denier myself as a constructivist / intuitionalist. But when we say things like "the rationals are discrete" or &quot
71.
by andrewla 3mo ago
Yes, you're right, they could just do this, and then spend the rest of their term thrown out of Congress and rotting in prison. That is, they can hold such a lunch, but they can't pocket the money personally or even have the money
72.
by andrewla 3mo ago
> why should politician listen to them if lobbyists are not promising them support in next elections in the form of marketing, payments for expenses and so on Mostly because those things are directly illegal. Lobbying organizations (and
73.
by andrewla 3mo ago
Yeah, this is really cool. I'm now deep in the rabbit hole of FSE encoding and ANS & tANS. The last time I poked my head in here, range encoding and arithmetic encoding were the state of the art for fractional entropy representatio
74.
by andrewla 3mo ago
But Adams was specifically arguing not against democracy in the broad term, but specifically, unconstrained direct democracy, so this is not relevant to this discussion.
75.
by andrewla 3mo ago
I think a lot of commenters here are missing the ball with the idea that this is a foreign policy or anti-US sentiment emerging. The core reality is that cloud infrastructure is becoming commoditized, and substrate-independence is becoming
76.
by andrewla 3mo ago
What do you see as the alternative for the purposes of this discussion? Are we talking cloud vs. on-prem or colo, or are we talking AWS vs. other-cloud? For the first (cloud vs. non-cloud) it's clear that cloud has some advantages beca
77.
by andrewla 3mo ago
What I'm saying is that we cannot observe deep structure. All we can observe is the surface structure. If we have access to the author or speaker we can ask clarifying questions, etc., but even that just produces more examples of sur
78.
by andrewla 3mo ago
Oh, now I see where we have an actual difference of opinion. I don't think you can deny that even Finnegan's wake proceeds one token at a time; your interpretation of it may require more context or out-of-order interpretation, but
79.
by andrewla 3mo ago
I dunno, man, I looked at that text and I see one word after another. Obviously language and the connection to human thought is more subtle than this; I think we all have a rich inner life. Just from an external perspective we can't ob
80.
by andrewla 3mo ago
At least "glorified autocomplete" is technically accurate, even if vastly underestimating the capability of LLMs. It's just trying to make something very impressive sound trivial. From an external standpoint, talking to anoth
81.
by andrewla 3mo ago
For context, here's the main quote: > Contrary to how it may seem when we observe its output, an LM is a system for haphazardly stitching together sequences of linguistic forms it has observed in its vast training data, according to
82.
by andrewla 3mo ago
The Northgate was a great keyboard, and a company called Creative Vision Technologies briefly owned and sold keyboards under the "Avant" brand. I had one of those, it finally succumbed to some sort of electrical issues so I let it
83.
by andrewla 4mo ago
> What these governments want to do I feel strongly that this conspiratorial mind-reading approach to this sort of issue is just counterproductive. What all the governments (and non-governments, frankly, there are many supporters of thes
84.
by andrewla 4mo ago
The article talks about the possibilities of malicious cloning of these tokens by third parties, but fails to identify the much more common use case, and one that makes this scheme useless for age verification. It's one thing to be con
85.
by andrewla 4mo ago
As another happy Enpass user I don't think it is significantly different. The exception being that the KeePass frontends are really just as expensive as Enpass is now. I also got a good deal on the lifetime pro membership before they m
86.
by andrewla 4mo ago
It is the easiest thing in the world to make it illegal. But while making the sale of alcohol to minors has some teeth, as above, the sale of these "tokens" is so low friction as to be laughable. This is another of the many many s
87.
by andrewla 4mo ago
I'll try one more time -- how many people, that is, individual human beings, do you believe have this capacity and the desire to use it? Is that number, like, 5? Is it 50? Or, more likely, is it 50,000? Of those people, how many succes
88.
by andrewla 4mo ago
There is no "done correctly". Intrinsically you simply cannot do this, and you have to accept this as almost axiomatic. If the online age token is not attached to a human identity in a strong way, then it can be transferred to oth
89.
by andrewla 4mo ago
> I think lots of people around here would agree that "the rich" are doing nefarious things I'm sorry, while it may be true that many people around here believe this, you have lost me in particular at this line. It may be
90.
by andrewla 4mo ago
Adults can be prosecuted for selling alcohol to minors (I mean, they can be prosecuted for selling drugs to other adults even). Because there is a physical handoff, there is risk in doing so, and thus there is high friction, which we deem t

More ›