drdeca

23 ms·

331.
by drdeca 2y ago
Tariffs are paid by the people buying and selling, to the state imposing the tariff.
332.
by drdeca 2y ago
The unrealistic assumption of someone offering to pay the part of your electricity bill that comes from lighting, no matter how big? Ok, yes, that’s clearly unrealistic, but, the cost of this presumably wouldn’t be like, totally insane, rig
333.
by drdeca 2y ago
Huh? Why would the demand curve for lighting not be “funky”? If someone offered to pay for all of your home lighting, no matter how much power your lighting took, how much lighting would you get? Presumably a bounded amount! But in this c
334.
by drdeca 2y ago
Showing the calculation you described: If p is the value drawn for A, then each time B is drawn, the probability that B>A is (1-p), So, the chance that B is drawn n times before being less than or equal to A is, p^(n-1) (1-p) (a geometr
335.
by drdeca 2y ago
Any basic operation you can do with reversible computing on bits, can be done with qubits. Any basic operation you can do with normal computing on bits can be done with reversible computing on bits provided that you have enough ancillary bi
336.
by drdeca 2y ago
I just meant “they generate power and sell it”, which, I realize now isn’t exactly what I said / what I said wasn’t exactly what I meant.
337.
by drdeca 2y ago
It’s not that I want to bet, but that I want a good probability estimate about whether commercially viable fusion power will be around by such and such date.
338.
by drdeca 2y ago
One issue I see for applying prediction markets to things like “there is a commercially successful fusion power plant before the year 2070” is the long time until resolution. Now, of course, one can hope to sell your shares in “yes” or “no”
339.
by drdeca 2y ago
Seems implausible. The fusion presumably wouldn’t keep going if it breached the walls. Also, to be bright enough that we would see it from here as a star, I imagine it would require enough material that one might as well just let gravity do
340.
by drdeca 2y ago
Hm, if you just consider unitary time evolution, I think it is compatible with quantum mechanics. "Psi(t) = U(t-t_0) Psi(t_0) for all real values for t" and all that. And, if you want to suppose objective collapse, I think you can
341.
by drdeca 2y ago
Disclaimer: I'm saying a lot of words here, but I don't actually entirely know what I'm talking about here. I'm saying things that I think make sense based on what I do understand, but I don't actually know details
342.
by drdeca 2y ago
Sure. But that isn’t a reason to conflate the two? OP wasn’t suggesting looking for an alternative/successor to MLPs, but for an alternative/successor to transformers (while presumably still using MLPs) in the same way that transf
343.
by drdeca 2y ago
Why are you conflating MLPs in general with specifically transformers?
344.
by drdeca 2y ago
Definition 6.1.1 and Proposition 6.1.2 ? The ones about bounded metric spaces?
345.
by drdeca 2y ago
To handle low entropy text, the “adding a smaller constant to the logits” approach avoids having much chance of changing the parts that need to be exactly a particular thing, Though in this case it needs longer texts to have high significan
346.
by drdeca 2y ago
I brought up making airplanes , not simulating airplanes . You brought up simulating airplanes. The point I am interested in making is primarily based on metaphor/precedent. Seems like a good basis for estimating how hard a task that
347.
by drdeca 2y ago
Because full brain simulation would be achieving intelligence in the same way brains achieve it? Are you saying that simulating a brain is analogous to simulating an airplane? A simulated airplane doesn’t actually fly. A simulated brain act
348.
by drdeca 2y ago
The first aircraft? Ok. And how far did aircraft get before we were able to make functioning wings that work by flapping in the way of birds? (Actually, have we even done the latter? I imagine we have, but I’m not sure.)
349.
by drdeca 2y ago
I believe airplanes were made before the first good simulations of bird flight.
350.
by drdeca 2y ago
It is easier to make a flying machine than it is to make a machine that flies by the exact principles that birds use to fly (with flapping wings and such). Do you have an argument for why general intelligence couldn’t be like flight in this
351.
by drdeca 2y ago
This seems to be assuming that AGI would be similarly difficult to full brain emulation? This doesn’t seem obviously true.
352.
by drdeca 2y ago
That some violation of energy-(if-we-don’t-count-energy-from-large-scale-spacetime-shape-stuff) (not counting energy from large-scale spacetime shape stuff may be sensible, because AIUI you can’t really obtain it as just a sum of local quan
353.
by drdeca 2y ago
That seems irrelevant to Gödel? If that was your point, you should have said that rather than the things about Turing and Gödel (which leads people to expect you are talking about the halting problem and incompleteness, not the limitations
354.
by drdeca 2y ago
Who is trying to “erase the truth of Gödel and Turing”? (Well, some cranks are, but I don’t think that’s who you are talking about.) Gödel and Turing’s results do not appear to give any reason that a computer program can’t do what a person
355.
by drdeca 2y ago
While learned is probably not the best word to use as far as describing the legality goes, I also don’t think “copied” is the right word. Let’s say that the model “is influenced by” the copyrighted material. That seems hard to argue against
356.
by drdeca 2y ago
Hm, what if instead of using video of the application… Ok, so if one can have one program snoop on all the rendering calls made by another program, maybe there could be a way of training a common representation of “an image of an applicatio
357.
by drdeca 2y ago
The other replies have said what was meant, but I don’t think they’ve explicitly addressed whether or not that is the sense used in the idea of NP. I would say… it is at least somewhat similar. A problem in NP might be of the form “For this
358.
by drdeca 2y ago
A “specification” which is based on just “the desired behavior in a few specific examples” seems to allow undesired behavior without it being clear whether said behavior is allowed by the spec. That to me doesn’t seem like what a “specifica
359.
by drdeca 2y ago
When it used to have Wolfram|Alpha integration, that part was sorta good? Not sure why they dropped it so quickly.
360.
by drdeca 2y ago
Q: Is a cast iron frying pan more like a crow or a bluebird? A?: Neither, because it isn’t a bird. Q: Is a cube more like a square or a circle? A?: Neither, as it isn’t a 2D shape. Q: Is a lightsaber more like a rapier or a pistol? A?: Neit

More ›