drdeca

4 ms·

31.
by drdeca 2mo ago
They didn’t say that it “appears” indistinguishable from noise, but that it is indistinguishable. It seems like you strongly believe otherwise, but I suspect you don’t have a good reason to, and just find it unbelievable. Do you think yo
32.
by drdeca 2mo ago
Hmm, could one instead of sending the model weights, send like, a merkle tree root for them, not exactly specifying the model, but at least demonstrating that the same model is used each time?
33.
by drdeca 2mo ago
You said that FHE is an oxymoron, seemingly on the basis that in proper encryption the ciphertext is indistinguishable from noise, and you think this can’t be true of FHE. I am arguing to the contrary. In the secret sharing multi-party comp
34.
by drdeca 2mo ago
Eh? With secret sharing one can do computation on a shared secret where it is provable that no individual party can recover any information about the data with their share alone. I don’t see why you conclude that FHE couldn’t be close to as
35.
by drdeca 2mo ago
The state you describe, sqrt(1/2) ( |01> + |10>) is an entangled state, but not all entangled states are like that. The state sqrt(1/2) ( |00> + |11> ) is also possible, and is also an entangled state, but doesn’t have
36.
by drdeca 2mo ago
No. A state is entangled when it isn’t a product state. Two spin (1/2) particles in a singlet state have the kind of “they have opposite states” thing going on that you describe, and is a specific way that two particles can be entangle
37.
by drdeca 2mo ago
By that logic, wouldn’t prizes in “test of strength hammer” games also be illegal? The game just has multiple aspects to it.
38.
by drdeca 2mo ago
Wouldn’t the ideal be that it informs you up front that it requires payment to get the benefit, but allows you to scan to estimate the benefit before deciding whether to pay (but after acknowledging that getting the benefit requires payment
39.
by drdeca 2mo ago
Maybe “rock solid” could be understood as slightly hyperbolic (though it is metaphorical, so hard to say whether it is really hyperbole), but, it is possible to predict some things probabilistically with a high degree of accuracy. Depending
40.
by drdeca 2mo ago
There’s a minimum karma requirement.
41.
by drdeca 2mo ago
I don’t think what you are pointing at is a real issue. Something exists. Therefore, on of the following 3 must hold: “one or more things exists or have existed which were not a consequence of another thing existing”, “an infinite regress o
42.
by drdeca 2mo ago
“GP” in this context is short for “grandparent” or “grandparent post”. It means the comment that they comment they are replying to, is a reply to.
43.
by drdeca 2mo ago
Can you give an instrumentalization (spelling?) for “ingenuity” by which we can test whether a behavior (in a context) shows any “ingenuity”?
44.
by drdeca 2mo ago
Well, of course at the real hardware level there will be some non-zero amount of nondeterminism, but the error correction steps that have been implemented are enough to make the probability of it behaving contrary to the design of the hardw
45.
by drdeca 2mo ago
It is true of course that there is no automatic procedure which takes in an arbitrary program and decides if it has a desired input/output behavior. (Whether an input program has a given “semantic property” is undecidable.) But that do
46.
by drdeca 2mo ago
Eh? I don’t see how Gödel’s results imply that.
47.
by drdeca 2mo ago
Most people don’t want to hurt lots of other people in an untargeted way, yes. But there are a lot of people, and, apparently a few of them shot up some electrical substations? If you hold constant the (very small) fraction of people who wa
48.
by drdeca 2mo ago
Whether or not this is compatible with how the constitution ought to be understood, in practice, it is illegal to create a nuclear bomb. Maybe those laws should be considered unconstitutional, idk. But those laws are currently in place.
49.
by drdeca 3mo ago
Well, what’s the theorem statement for the result you’re thinking of then? Of course n bits can only encode for 2^n options. But to prove mathematically that we are close to the best that can be achieved in 1GB requires a mathematical defin
50.
by drdeca 3mo ago
So, when you said “proven” I thought you might have meant like, a mathematical proof. It appears that this is not what you meant. (Right?) (If it is what you meant, I was asking for like, the particular theorem.) Also, ok, when I said “inte
51.
by drdeca 3mo ago
What proof of a ceiling are you talking about? Wouldn’t proving this require a good definition for intelligence, which I don’t think there is consensus on?
52.
by drdeca 3mo ago
Do you think the sort of people who complain about articles being AI-written are incapable of writing articles or something? Why would not being willing to read articles produced that way result in not reading any articles?
53.
by drdeca 3mo ago
I think there is both value that comes from the work being authored by a human, and value which does not?
54.
by drdeca 3mo ago
If your prediction is a probability distribution, rather than a discrete outcome label, then, assuming the distribution over the future depends continuously on your action, there should be a fixed point, I think? Like, if you output a proba
55.
by drdeca 3mo ago
Do you know any browsers which don’t support https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ (if you remove the google traffic tracking js that’s iirc tacked on at the end of the page (or maybe I’m thinking of better mfing website (which
56.
by drdeca 3mo ago
Was surprised and somewhat disappointed that the article doesn’t appear to evaluate how well the models work when running in the harnesses optimized for the other models. Do they still do better than with the baseline harness? Does each mod
57.
by drdeca 4mo ago
This seems implausible.
58.
by drdeca 4mo ago
The criticism of “these posts are AI generated” seems like something that is about the posts themselves?
59.
by drdeca 4mo ago
If that’s it, why is it using ∋ rather than ∈? I would expect “Ǝx∈ℕ”.
60.
by drdeca 4mo ago
I feel like this didn’t really go anywhere? In the discussion section he says that this should provide reason to not expect easy theorems or answers, but I don’t feel like that was really derived from the results of the experiments? What’

More ›