d4rkn0d3z

9 ms·

121.
Why is "truth-seeking" a goal?
2 points by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago|15 comments
122.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Two enthusiastic thumbs up.
123.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
'Yeah you can, tho...' I can do no such thing. The idea of a "force" as known to Newton, being "action at a distance" by "mutual attraction", is not at all present in GR.
124.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
'Only for a useless definition of "wrong"....' The definition of wrong is given in the second part of the sentence you quote. Newton was usefully wrong in a scientific sense; His theory and ontology of time as immutably
125.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
For the record, Newton was vastly conceptually wrong which is not the same as saying his work is useless because being wrong in a precise way is science. Time does not "flow immutably from one moment to the next" and there are no
126.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Are you not concerned that force-feeding might be unduly disparaged by your comparison?
127.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Clearly, this author could sell ice cubes to penguins. What a splended piece! The word that kept coming to my mind as I read this was convergence.
128.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Isn't this saying "We get it that our nondeterministic bullshit machine writes crap, but we are wrapping it in a deterministic finite state machine in order to bring back determinism. We call it 'Agentic'". Seems l
129.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
There is a fairly strong scientific/historical argument that suggests neither mercenaries nor missionaries have had made any significant contribution to the outcome of any important human conflict or endeavour. Rather microscopic life
130.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I don't think there is anything interesting that we disagree on. I'm just not finding the ontology that I must accept/adopt to do quantum mechanics objectionable despite that it shows little respect for my scale-laden experi
131.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
So you interpret QM as just math, with no physical meaning or interpretation, that's fine. "Shut up and calculate", is old hat. My point is similar but not quite so prohibitive. It isn't about cats, rather it is about
132.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
In which, Pooh chases heffalumps around a spinney of larch trees. One day Pooh came apon some tracks in the snow and began to follow them out of curiousity. At times he became afraid that perhaps they were the tracks of a scary monster, a
133.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Why does a cat being both alive and dead sound like nonsense? It seems to me to be the most accurate description of nature. The "cat" is some kind of soup of cells and other more primitive life forms engaged in a pitched battle
134.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
The OpenAI pitch: I have a solution to all problems, it's like consciousness in humans but for robots and its better...singularity! Sam you need to touch grass.
135.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Started yes, but in the long term?
136.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
This is known as question begging; the question is: Do the costs justify the investments? That question can't be answered by assuming they do. Also revenue is not profit.
137.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I wrote my first MLP 25 years ago. After repeating some early experiments in machine learning from 20 ywars before that. One of the experiments I repeated was in text to speach. It was amazing to set up training runs and return after sev
138.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
You cannot ask this follow-up unless you first answer mine as to cost. And not cost today but cost for the long haul.
139.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
How much does it cost to run several agents?
140.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I think if you stop labelling it "AI" and instead use "meta-software" or "natural language programming tools", then all of the hidden and externalized costs resurface. And a better understanding of skepticism
141.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Valid for n*p < 1, geometric series convergence, I should have mentioned.
142.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Correct!
143.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Arrange things so they are easy to change.
144.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
It is remarkable how small p has to be for change to be cost effective.
145.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
It is easy to see this by forming the geometric series and rearranging terms, the standard Euler trick.
146.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I think it says 1/(1-np).
147.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I think about this from the perpective of change management. Every defect I hope to fix entails a change, which has a certain probability of creating another irksome deficiency or incompatibility. When building complex systems I try to de
148.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
AI increases our ability to produce bullshit but doesn't do much to increase our ability to detect bullshit. One sentence of bullshit takes 1000 sentences of clear reasoning to dispel.
149.
by d4rkn0d3z 2y ago
Nifty trick.
150.
by d4rkn0d3z 2y ago
"Vibe Coding" might get you 80% the way to a functioning concept." But 80% of the functionality is only 10% of the work. The last 20% of the functionality remains and will require 90% of the work.

More ›