drdeca

12 ms·

181.
by drdeca 11mo ago
Why would it relate to your past experience of being held in your mothers arms, rather than to whatever inbuilt tendencies that lead one to respond well to being held in one’s mother’s arms while a baby? Like, if kissing is derived from imp
182.
by drdeca 1y ago
There is more than one way we could generalize the precedent previously set, imo. None of the templates included with e.g. Word were for smut. Word allowed you to type in smut, but it didn’t produce smut that wasn’t written by the user. For
183.
by drdeca 1y ago
Technically? Microsoft Word certainly lets one write smut, and Photoshop certainly allows one to draw pornography? They won’t like, produce NSFW things automatically of course.
184.
by drdeca 1y ago
How does it determine whether the code it has for the skill, failed? (In order to determine that it needs to improve the code for that skill, I mean)
185.
by drdeca 1y ago
I don’t think non-commuting observables really helps much in the “free will existing” department.
186.
by drdeca 1y ago
Maybe not feasible now, but maybe it could be feasible at some point in the future if things are built on top of seL4 , with similar techniques used to demonstrate that the programs in question also have some desired security properties, bu
187.
by drdeca 1y ago
Hm, the puzzle_id thing seems… questionable? Maybe I’m misunderstanding.
188.
by drdeca 1y ago
Here are some applications of eigenvectors and eigenvalues: 1) If you have a set of states and a stochastic transition function, which gives for each starting state, the probability distribution over what the state will be at the next time
189.
by drdeca 1y ago
To remind oneself how to multiply matrices together, it suffices to remember how to apply a matrix to a column vector, and that ((A B) v) = (A (B v)). For each 1-hot vector e_i (i.e. the row vector that has a 1 in the i-th position and 0s e
190.
by drdeca 1y ago
Make the reporting require a money deposit, which, if the report is deemed valid by reviewers, is returned, and if not, is kept and goes towards paying reviewers.
191.
by drdeca 1y ago
Some people (not me) would consider only countably many of those subsets to be “possible”.
192.
by drdeca 1y ago
More granular. What things is it bad at that result in it being overall “bad at coding”? It isn’t all of the parts.
193.
by drdeca 1y ago
Ah, that I wouldn't call presumptuous. I just interpreted a previous statement you made as saying that one can prove that certain such things can't exist. So, I guess there was just a miscommunication (I guess I misunderstood.)
194.
by drdeca 1y ago
This is a bad argument. You may as well say “It’s just a thing that has been invented. Do you wish that all things that have been invented hadn’t been invented?”.
195.
by drdeca 1y ago
Ok, but regardless of your feelings about AI, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t wish that nuclear weapons had never been invented. (Well, maybe it ended the combat between the US and Japan faster…, and maybe prevented the Cold War from be
196.
by drdeca 1y ago
AIUI, they generally do all of that at the beginning. Another approach, I suppose, could be to have it generate a second pass? Though that would probably ~double the inference cost.
197.
by drdeca 1y ago
No, that’s not what I said. Thinking you can determine a-priori that something that is logically self-consistent, cannot exist, if there is no reason that such a thing being physically instantiated would imply a logical contradiction, is th
198.
by drdeca 1y ago
> Things only exist when you can construct them. This is exactly what I’m saying is presumptive! If constructivism is to earn the merit of being less presumptive by virtue of not assuming the existence of various things, it should also
199.
by drdeca 1y ago
Can one do QFT in an ultrafinitistic foundations? My guess is no. Also, I don’t think ZF sans the axiom of infinity works as an ultrafinitistic theory? It still has every natural number, just not the set of all of them.
200.
by drdeca 1y ago
This may be, but not, I think, in a way that is particularly worth modeling? When we try to model something probabilistically, it is usually not a great idea to model the probability that we made an error in our probability calculations as
201.
by drdeca 1y ago
If such a system proved that the answer to some decidable question was x, when the actual answer was y, then the system would prove a contradiction. If the system doesn’t prove a contradiction, then that situation doesn’t happen, so you ca
202.
by drdeca 1y ago
What do you mean by “just applying stats”?
203.
by drdeca 1y ago
Yes. One may argue that tit-for-tat is appropriate, but generous-tit-for-tat is better.
204.
by drdeca 1y ago
I agree that the law of the excluded middle is true, but it is actually useful in a number of contexts to have equality types, and witnesses for two given terms being equal. Of course, in some contexts when one has those types, it may be be
205.
by drdeca 1y ago
I think there’s an equivocation being accidentally made between n-gram models, and Markov processes, because “Markov chain” is used to mean both things. N-gram models are not useful in many of the ways LLMs are. N-gram models are very limit
206.
by drdeca 1y ago
By “memory” I was including whatever is on disk, and the values of all the CPU registers, and all the CPU flags, etc. So, yeah, the state of the computer (regarded as an abstract machine, not viewed at the level of the physical hardware) Oh
207.
by drdeca 1y ago
“just”? If you include the entire past history as part of the state, then any stochastic process becomes a Markov process. Any computer program (without network stuff or inputs for a time (assume your computer has a true RNG module)) you co
208.
by drdeca 1y ago
There is more than one ailment in existence.
209.
by drdeca 1y ago
It is quite common for a lemma to be needed to ensure that a definition is well-defined. The term “defi-lemma” exists for a reason. As a simple example, suppose X is a set and r is a relation on X. If I define Y := X/r , the set of equ
210.
by drdeca 1y ago
Yes. However, in some cases (though probably not the ones relevant here) a definition can be proven to be incoherent (or, to presuppose something false), which is vaguely similar to “being false”.

More ›