cs137

21 ms·

1. 151.▲
   by cs137 4y ago

   I really don't think this guy intended to run a hoax or generate publicity, given that he's made himself look foolish. I think he was actually seduced by the idea of a sentient computer. It's not that far a leap to go from th
2. 152.▲
   by cs137 4y ago

   We can't perfectly model a physical system (a quantum system, at some level) with classical computing. We'd need a quantum computer, and we still don't know what are the limitations on our ability to build one (the quantum co
3. 153.▲
   by cs137 4y ago

   Whether we are more than computers is almost a religious question (I believe yes, but I can't prove it). However, any computation that we can prove through finite language, in the sense of absolute mathematical proof, can be checked by
4. 154.▲
   by cs137 4y ago

   I'm convinced that everything Paul Graham has written since about 2009 is some generation of GPT. You could ask him if he's satisfied with its work. It's actually not hard to write a program that can do what he does. "Wh
5. 155.▲
   by cs137 4y ago

   Neural nets can, provably, approximate any function, modulo certain conditions about continuity (i.e., can't be discontinuous in infinitely many places, that sort of thing). Universality is trivial to prove with boolean functions (beca
6. 156.▲
   by cs137 4y ago

   This. I wonder if Bay Area people still claim to be "living in the future", as they did in the 2000s and early 2010s. They were right, but I wish they hadn't been, because the future turned out to suck.