babypistol

7 ms·

1.
by babypistol 10mo ago
What is up with this argument that LLMs cannot be Turing complete? > There is a simple argument showing that GPTs, even with an infinite context window, cannot be Turing complete. Since the vocabulary size is finite, the rows of the embe
2.
by babypistol 7y ago
I have used DuckDuckGo a couple of years back, but, after some more consideration switched back to Google. Apart from privacy I never really liked the direction DuckDuckGo was going in (more below). Just recently I decided to search for an
3.
by babypistol 8y ago
Calling it a myth implies that there is adequate evidence to refute it. By your reasoning we could also be talking about the Giving-Free-Cash-To-The-Poor-Will-Make-Them-Productive myth.
4.
by babypistol 8y ago
I don't understand why you are responding to me in such a condescending tone, but thanks anyway for the discussion. I'm well aware that P vs NP is a very hard question (I have studied quite some complexity theory, although I am a
5.
by babypistol 8y ago
Well that's the problem, man. And asymptotically is not the right word either, because n^3 is asymptotically different from n^2. You probably meant poly-time reducible, whichs is quite different from " the same ".
6.
by babypistol 8y ago
Thanks for the explanation. But, I do have some comments: 1) As far as a I can tell the fact that PRIMES is in P doesn't mean breaking RSA is. The problem in rsa is integer factorization for which we do not know whether it is in P. (Bu
7.
by babypistol 8y ago
Well I'm trying to understand why this question is big. The fact that the exponents tend to be small in the algorithms that our puny brains were able to produce does not convince me one bit that all problems in P have algorithms with s
8.
by babypistol 8y ago
Yeah, in this case we are back to square one and P vs NP again seems irrelevant to me.
9.
by babypistol 8y ago
I have always been puzzled by why we as computer scientists give such importance to P vs NP. I always thought that even if P = NP the solutions might still be much harder (but only polynomially) to find than to verify. I always get angry wh
10.
by babypistol 8y ago
In my opinion P = NP does not mean that. There still might be a big polynomial difference between verifying a solution and finding one.
11.
by babypistol 8y ago
I haven't heard of EMH before today and can't really comment on that. But it seems to me that even in the example from your note the stock price will tend to reflect the the correct price. As you realease new information the facto
12.
by babypistol 8y ago
Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like this view in this case. Crypto in cryptocurrency still stands for cryptographic and by using crypto for cryptocurrency we are making things harder to understand for eveyone. Of course la
13.
by babypistol 8y ago
Oh, I meant paper as a material. (And you probably got that.)
14.
by babypistol 8y ago
I think the problem is that blockcain fans mostly don't care about real crypto :) and use "crypto" as a synonym for digital currency. To me, saying "crypto" means blockchain seems like saying "paper" means
15.
by babypistol 9y ago
I don't understand why people still do this type of "X will grow" predictions. You have nothing to lose by making such predictions, just like how everyone who predicted the rise of tulips is now laughed upon. Furthermore, eve