dgfl

7 ms·

31.
by dgfl 6mo ago
This is a pipe dream and I’m almost tempted to say a fever dream. The chemistry part seems somewhat sound, even though that’s outside of my field of expertise. But the entire readout process is questionable, and has clear signs of heavy AI
32.
by dgfl 6mo ago
Yes, this is a fair point. I agree that orbital mechanics is trivially easy compared to everything else. The chances of a math mistake in particular are null, these trajectories have all been calculated years in advance.
33.
by dgfl 6mo ago
Yes, challenger. The O-ring failed, creating a gas exhaust that almost instantly destroyed the main propellant tank.
34.
by dgfl 6mo ago
This is underselling the risks. On top of the many trajectories which push them into unrecoverable situations, leaving them stranded in orbit, there can be trajectories where the moon gives a gravity assist strong enough to fling the spacec
35.
In-Place Test-Time Training(arxiv.org)
1 points by dgfl 6mo ago|1 comments
36.
by dgfl 6mo ago
related git repo: https://github.com/ByteDance-Seed/In-Place-TTT
37.
by dgfl 6mo ago
Isn’t this what AGI is by design? People CAN learn to become good at videogames. Modern LLMs can’t, they have to be retrained from scratch (I consider pre-training to be a completely different process than learning). I also don’t necessaril
38.
by dgfl 7mo ago
Disagree on the last statement. Makie is tremendously superior to matplotlib. I love ggplot but it is slow, as all of R is. And my work isn’t so heavy on statistics anyway. Makie has the best API I’ve seen (mostly matlab / matplotlib i
39.
by dgfl 8mo ago
Some quick napkin math: AI energy usage for a chat like that in the post (estimated ~100 Wh) is comparable to driving ~100m in the average car, making 1 of toast, or bring 1 liter of water to boiling. I’d wager the average American eats mor
40.
by dgfl 8mo ago
Exactly the same as pointing out that LLMs use energy. That whole conversation probably used as much energy as making a piece of toast.
41.
by dgfl 8mo ago
Indeed, the original comment you replied to actually made no sense in this case. But there seemed to be some confusion in the thread, so I tried to clear that up. I hope I’ll get to talk with one of the cerebras engineers one day, that chip
42.
by dgfl 8mo ago
There’s an expected amount of defects per wafer. If a chip has a defect, then it is lost (simplification). A wafer with 100 chips may lose 10 to defects, giving a yield of 90%. The same wafer but with 1000 smaller chips would still have los
43.
by dgfl 8mo ago
This is precisely the matter, I wholeheartedly agree. The metacognition that we have, that only humans are likely to have, is the root behind the millennium-long discussions on consciousness. And the hard problem stems from whatever was lef
44.
by dgfl 8mo ago
If you let the computer run for long enough, it will compute any atomic spectrum to arbitrary accuracy. Only QFT has non-divergent series, so at least in theory we expect the calculations to converge. There’s an intrinsic physical limit to
45.
by dgfl 8mo ago
“There’s plenty of space at the bottom” only really took off in popularity decades later. Feynman’s accomplishments are undeniable, Nobel prize and all, but his celebrity status is given by other aspects of his personality. No Feynman equiv
46.
by dgfl 8mo ago
Said by the man himself no less
47.
by dgfl 8mo ago
Feynman is indeed often quoted among the first people to propose the idea of a quantum computer! This talk he gave in ‘81 is among the earliest discussion of why a quantum universe requires a quantum computer to be simulated [1]: > Can a
48.
by dgfl 8mo ago
You seem to be familiar with the field, yet this is a very strange view? I work on exactly this slice of solid state physics and semiconductor devices. I’m not sure what you mean here. The way we construct Hamiltonians is indeed somewhat ad
49.
by dgfl 8mo ago
I think most of them are valid questions! (1) is perhaps more of a question requiring a strict definition of consciousness in the first place, making it mostly circular. (2) and especially (3) are the most interesting, but they seem part of
50.
by dgfl 8mo ago
This is not as good a refusal as you think it is. To me (and I imagine, the parent poster) there is no extra logical step needed. The problem IS solved in this sense. If it’s completely impossible to even imagine what the answer to a questi
51.
by dgfl 8mo ago
You also don’t consciously use your senses until you actively think about them. Same as “you are now aware of your breathing”. Sudden changes in a sensation may trigger them to be conscious without “you” taking action, but that’s not so dif
52.
by dgfl 8mo ago
You’re free to vote towards your goals, or move to countries which invest basically nothing in research. There’s plenty of them. I suspect you may not enjoy such great quality of life there. In case it wasn’t a rhetorical question, they’re
53.
by dgfl 8mo ago
In a few cases and in a simplistic sense, yes. But the point of the comment you’re replying to still stands completely. Quantum tunneling is nothing exotic and we have plenty of devices exploiting the principle (e.g. tunnel diodes). It was
54.
by dgfl 9mo ago
This was such a big pain for me when switching back to windows / Linux. I’m not sure why it’s not talked about more. 4 modifiers is much better if you are a keyboard “power user” but don’t want to spend days crafting and maintaining a
55.
by dgfl 10mo ago
I have more or less the same views, although I can’t formulate them half as well as you do. I would have to think more in depth about those conditions that you highlighted in the GP; I’d read a book elaborating on it. I’ve heard a similar t
56.
by dgfl 10mo ago
I didn’t make it up, it’s a well known talking point around string theory. I think it was first mentioned by a practicing string theorist. Of course it’s not a novel critique, but I’ve read about putting data centers in space on this websit
57.
by dgfl 10mo ago
You may be understating how much 15 orders of magnitude are. The only truly exponential technological progress we’ve ever had, transistors, only scaled by ~5 orders of magnitude in feature size. Thermal engines went from maybe 0.1% to ~50%,
58.
by dgfl 10mo ago
Bad article. The thesis may even be valuable, but it’s riddled with falsehoods trying to prove the point. It reads more as the usual person disliking the idea of IQ and trying to bash its foundation. Some actual facts are: 1. Einstein was a
59.
by dgfl 10mo ago
They’re trying to sell their product, which seems like a new language + runtime inspired by matlab. Reinventing Julia perhaps? It will be missing all the things that make matlab unique, as you point out.
60.
by dgfl 10mo ago
You do realize how many arbitrary words and concepts that are nowhere to be found in “conventional” math there are here, right? I know what all of these do, but I just can’t shake the feeling that I’m constantly fighting with an actual pyth

More ›