drdeca

34 ms·

481.
by drdeca 2y ago
Ok, but surely if there are no branches, but only a single path, there would be no way to get lost? The only way would be if you forgot which direction you were facing?
482.
by drdeca 2y ago
I just don’t think that a particular measure of value, is necessary something for which “hitting the target” is a good analogy. Going beyond what has been done before, even in qualitatively novel ways, can be favored by/within a fixe
483.
by drdeca 2y ago
> To be great means breaking the boundaries of all values, No? A great runner doesn’t go beyond the values of running faster over longer distances. Proving great new theorems does not require going beyond traditional notions of proof. No
484.
by drdeca 2y ago
If you remove the last sentence of each of these, I think they seem somewhat true. Personal interest plays a role of course. To varying degrees?
485.
by drdeca 2y ago
No, I don’t think “reasoning” should require intent. I think a prolog program should be something that can be described as reasoning.
486.
by drdeca 2y ago
Neutrino ≠ neutron. The “ino” in neutrino is like a diminutive. Neutrons are much heavier than a neutrino. I don’t think they have a positive lower bound on the size of the smallest mass eigenstate of neutrinos (though they do on the other
487.
by drdeca 2y ago
Ok but so is everything? The phrasing makes it sound like they were saying that the development of the lightbulb was through understanding of quantum mechanics (which, it of course was not).
488.
by drdeca 2y ago
> or the light bulb from quantum mechanics. ?
489.
by drdeca 2y ago
> It's a category error to attribute intentions to algorithms because if an algorithm has intentions then so must numbers and arithmetic operations of numbers. I don't see how that makes it a category error? Like, assuming that
490.
by drdeca 2y ago
When I said it didn’t require a training set, I meant you wouldn’t need to design one. I don’t understand what you mean by the comment about state-space inflation. Do you mean that the world is big, or that the number of hypotheses it consi
491.
by drdeca 2y ago
> itself not very well defined, but let's use IQ IQ has an issue that is inessential to the task at hand, which is how it is based on a population distribution. It doesn’t make sense for large values (unless there is a really large
492.
by drdeca 2y ago
Do you mean no way to get there within realistic computation bounds? Because if we allow for arbitrarily high (but still finite) amounts of compute, then some computable approximation of AIXI should work fine.
493.
by drdeca 2y ago
Have you heard of predictive processing?
494.
by drdeca 2y ago
Not all that infrequently (though not in the last week iirc) I find myself in a state which I think of as being, “half asleep” (or (3/4) asleep, or whatever. Various degrees of “asleep”) and I’m still able to kind-of think about things
495.
by drdeca 2y ago
I don't see what the first part of your comment brings to the last part of your comment, the part which addresses the question. I think the question asked is maybe something along the lines of, "If we consider the pseudo-Riemannia
496.
by drdeca 2y ago
What if the law says "social media companies with more than [quantity] in revenue" ? Or, something to that effect?
497.
by drdeca 2y ago
If the heat produced and the volume are each proportional to the number of qubits (R proportional to cube root of n), and the surface area bounding the qubits is as small as it could be while bounding that much volume (as a pessimistic assu
498.
by drdeca 2y ago
Huh? What are you saying is an exponential function? x^3 is not an exponential function, in the sense relevant here.
499.
by drdeca 2y ago
It seems unclear to me what it is that LLMs can’t/don’t do. I agree that there are substantial limitations of current ones, but I have little idea of which of these limitations are fundamental to the architecture (as well as which are
500.
by drdeca 2y ago
Rather than including “portal” as a kind of thing in your space, I would think to just say, “around each point, there is an open ball such that the metric (not the metric tensor, just the d(x,y) thing) is the same as a ball in Euclidean spa
501.
by drdeca 2y ago
Huh? I would imagine that content that is about people’s feelings and the things those feelings are about, would be more likely to offend? Who gets offended by content about like, “How navigation would be different if space were like X?” or
502.
by drdeca 2y ago
I don’t think I’ve seen a definition of “art” which specifically excludes such things?
503.
by drdeca 2y ago
?? I don’t understand this response. People aren’t saying that they shouldn’t have been allowed to run the ad. You seem to be responding as if they were. People are saying they found the content of the ad objectionable/upsetting. Is yo
504.
by drdeca 2y ago
If one removes red while the other removes green, then if something looks dark through the lens that blocks green, and looks bright in the one that doesn't block green (but blocks red), then one could tell that it is green. (and visa v
505.
by drdeca 2y ago
Get a collection of data which is small enough to have humans annotate as being either low quality or high quality. Train a model to predict this annotation. Then on a larger disjoint collection of data, use this model to estimate whether t
506.
by drdeca 2y ago
Sure. It does tell you things about fluids though.
507.
by drdeca 2y ago
... because people understand things about what is described when dealing with such systems in physics, and people don't understand how the weights in ML learned NNs produce the overall behavior? (For one thing, the number of parameter
508.
by drdeca 2y ago
“calculate” in that phrase, refers to doing the math, and the understanding that that entails, not pressing the “=“ button on a calculator.
509.
by drdeca 2y ago
I think this relies on either the word “concrete” or a particular choice of sense for “concrete understanding”. Like, quantum mechanics doesn’t seem, to me, to just be a way of describing how to predict things. I view it as saying substanti
510.
by drdeca 2y ago
> non-quantum entanglement ? What’s that?

More ›