drdeca

9 ms·

121.
by drdeca 9mo ago
An RT is visible in the feed when following someone. Public likes are visible when going to their account and viewing their list of likes. (When they put both in the feed, it’s just dumb.) Private likes are different from bookmarks in that
122.
by drdeca 9mo ago
“prompt topology”? This all sounds like spiralism.
123.
by drdeca 9mo ago
I’m also an introvert, I think, but I do feel I would be better off with more socialization than I’m getting. Though, I’m also single, so, maybe I wouldn’t feel such a need if I were married? Idk.
124.
by drdeca 9mo ago
This comment I'm making is mostly useless nitpicking, and I overall agree with your point. Now I will commence my nitpicking: I suspect that it may merely be infeasible, not strictly impossible. There has been work on automatically pro
125.
by drdeca 9mo ago
And? Do the arguments differ for LLM vs the other models? I guess the arguments sometimes mention languages. But I feel like the core of the arguments are pretty much the same regardless?
126.
by drdeca 9mo ago
What if making progress today is harder than it was then?
127.
by drdeca 9mo ago
Hm, why T=-0.0001 instead of T=-1 ? Also, I wonder, if you sampled a lot of text at temperature -1, and then trained a new model on that text, and then sampled the resulting model at T=-1 , would you get anything meaningful?
128.
by drdeca 9mo ago
Oh man, I was going to try and find that to link to it. I can’t believe it was 10 years ago… I really enjoyed following that for a while. Thanks for making it.
129.
by drdeca 9mo ago
I agree that that the criteria you gave is probably more relevant for the issue at hand, sure. And, while definitions may not be super important (as you say), and while it is often fine to redefine a word within some context, I do think the
130.
by drdeca 9mo ago
If a definition can be changed in a way that makes it both simpler and removes an edge case, I think that is often (but not always) a sign that the change may be a good one. (Though, that doesn’t imply that the best available definition won
131.
by drdeca 9mo ago
> and showing it to people who don't want to see it. So, do superbowl ads not count as ads because a non-negligible portion of the viewership wants to see them? Or are you saying that there needs to be a non-negligible fraction of t
132.
by drdeca 9mo ago
Eh? They can grow skin cultures that are good enough to help burn victims. Not, like, with all the pores and follicles being there, but it is skin…
133.
by drdeca 9mo ago
Technically a HTTCPCP status code I think?
134.
by drdeca 9mo ago
What? I think we all have some idea of how pixels work.
135.
by drdeca 10mo ago
Isn’t whether or not something is propaganda determined by the intent of those producing or distributing it? If the intent of someone including two men kissing in a movie is to promote approval of homosexual relationships, OR is to promote
136.
by drdeca 10mo ago
There are thought experiments where the various Planck units (or, times some small power of pi or 2pi) pop out quite naturally. The theoretical entropy for a Schwartzchild black hole is nicely expressed using the Planck area. So… No. Your
137.
by drdeca 10mo ago
Well, who votes for politicians? The public. Are all members of the public therefore culpable? Voting isn’t a means by which every voter’s preferences are amalgamated into a coherent set of preferences. Voting is better than the available a
138.
by drdeca 10mo ago
Sorry, I think I replied to your previous comment too quickly without reading it carefully enough. I was trying to defend my previous comment, and didn’t adequately consider your point.
139.
by drdeca 10mo ago
Right, there’s clearly a problem, and I think even a systemic problem. I just don’t think it follows that literally every officer is therefore culpable. I think I would say that probably almost every police union leader is culpable.
140.
by drdeca 10mo ago
I like to think that what the “can’t prove a negative” phrase originated from was someone grasping at the difference between Pi_1 and Sigma_1 statements . For a Pi_1 statement, one needs only a single counterexample to refute it, but to ver
141.
by drdeca 10mo ago
My favorite slogan is “Slogans are always bad.” . It can be interpreted in a lot of different ways that make a lot of sense, and that’s why I repeat it often, without clarifying what I mean by it.
142.
by drdeca 10mo ago
Suppose you have a system where 1 actor is bad, and 500000 actors are “good except that they protect that one guy”, and then the one guy dies of a freak heart attack, and then all but one of the 500000 are replaced with “good actors” except
143.
by drdeca 10mo ago
Of course. Did part of what I said suggest I thought otherwise? I guess the part about the “when you quantize it after fixing the gauge in a way that loses the manifestness of the Lorentz invariance, if you aren’t in the critical dimension,
144.
by drdeca 10mo ago
Yes? It means the Lorentz invariance is automatic from the form of the expression, does it not?
145.
by drdeca 10mo ago
Ok, so I looked into it a bit, and here’s my understanding: The Polyakov action is kinda by default manifestly Lorentz invariant, but in order to quantize it, one generally first picks the light cone gauge, where this gauge choice treats s
146.
by drdeca 10mo ago
There are no such experimental results satisfying the criteria I laid out. You may be right in objecting to the criteria I laid out, but, the fact remains that it does not satisfy these (perhaps misguided) criteria. In particular, predictin
147.
by drdeca 10mo ago
Pardon, but, huh? I very much thought that Lorentz invariance was built into the assumptions of string theory. Concluding from “A AND B” that “A”, while it does reach a conclusion that is distinct from the assumption, is not impressive. If
148.
by drdeca 10mo ago
I suspect what they mean is that there is no outcome of an experiment such that, prior to the experiment, people computed that string theory says that the experiment should have such a result, but our other theories in best standing would s
149.
by drdeca 10mo ago
It has delivered falsifiable postdictions though. Like, there are some measurable quantities which string theory says must be in a particular (though rather wide) finite range, and indeed the measured value is in that range. The value was m
150.
by drdeca 10mo ago
It does, but a number of alternative theories of quantum gravity do not. So, if Lorentz invariance is shown to be violated, this would favor those over string theory.

More ›