dvt

45 ms·

781.
by dvt 4y ago
I feel rationals is probably the easiest case to prove, still clever though! Interesting (though not surprising) how there's a countably infinite number of rationals that satisfy this.
782.
by dvt 4y ago
> is it possible to write proofs about proofs Yep, I took several metamathematics classes at UCLA! Mostly on proof theory, but also analyzing metamathematical results (like Godel's theorems, Henkin construction, and so on).
783.
by dvt 4y ago
Maybe I misunderstood, but the comment seemed to dismiss copyright issues as a cheap way to kill AI ("soft underbelly"). I think stealing code is a pretty serious deal and the onus is on AI software companies to make sure they are
784.
by dvt 4y ago
Are you seriously arguing that stealing code is okay in the name of "AI development"?
785.
by dvt 4y ago
It's interesting to see all this hard work being done specifically for "fact-fixing" inside neural networks, whereas I think the future is probably having two models: one for language processing (grammar, etc.) and the othe
786.
by dvt 4y ago
> The ferry is actually a very odd boat in this, btw. As I am not clear that starboard/port are fixed. The boat literally goes in both directions, such that I'm assuming I don't have to know which is the "front"
787.
by dvt 4y ago
The article doesn't touch on this, but Sun Tzu famously wrote about the importance of spycraft in his The Art of War . It actually completely changed my outlook on what it's like to truly go at war (from a macro standpoint). The
788.
by dvt 4y ago
I think there's probably some middle ground between "throw all homeless people in jail" and "tolerate homeless people doing meth next to an elementary school."
789.
by dvt 4y ago
> My algorithm should obviously work using Dijkstra's algorithm instead of A*. You just have to make sure ALL nodes are explored. Gotcha, yeah, that's what I was thinking. You lose basically all of A-star's optimization be
790.
by dvt 4y ago
Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding, but figuring out the "best current path" means re-running A* every time you break a wall, as removing arbitrary walls can give you a totally new path to the goal; to wit, it might be a path
791.
by dvt 4y ago
No, but I'm not sure if it would make much of a difference, feel free to try it out.
792.
by dvt 4y ago
> My first thought was to also run A* from the end to the start. This would allow you to look at each wall in the maze and check if the A* cost from the start + A* cost from the end < best current path. In my opinion, this would resul
793.
by dvt 4y ago
> When you first run A* to traverse the maze, you can assign each edge a weight equal to the distance between the two adjacent nodes, which is equal to the Manhattan distance in your case. Once you have completed the traversal, you can g
794.
by dvt 4y ago
Yeah, I mean even the "nice" areas, as in North of Wilshire, West of Lincoln.
795.
by dvt 4y ago
I asked it this question[1], I traverse a maze using a basic A* implementation (using the Manhattan distance metric). However, after the traversal, I would like to find out what wall would give me the best alternative path. Apart from
796.
by dvt 4y ago
> in large part, they're all impressive technologies in search of problems to solve. I'm no AI fanboy, but let's be fair: machine learning has been solving problems for decades now. From OCR, to translation, to facial reco
797.
by dvt 4y ago
> So much of the problem in SF comes down to the progressive politician types who only want to things that "impact the root causes of crime" and its extremely frustrating and frequently just plain wrong. It's getting bad i
798.
by dvt 4y ago
The voice is insanely good (a few long vowels are noticeably artificial/synthesized if you're paying attention, but that's a tiny nit), what tools do you use to generate it?
799.
by dvt 4y ago
> but you end up with something that sure does look a lot like meaning I suggest you read some Quine and Kripke; the argument that word embeddings encode meaning ( particularly via locality) is an incredibly philosophically-naive positi
800.
by dvt 4y ago
> It is trained to put together words with similar... meaning. So the embedding is a representation of... meaning. This might be waxing philosophical, but my position is that the meaning of a word is intrinsic, not extrinsic. The meaning
801.
by dvt 4y ago
> A multi-layer neural net is not limited to vague statistical combinations. It, absolutely, unequivocally, 100% is only limited to statistical inference. That's how it works . The problem of linear separability (which is like 60 y
802.
by dvt 4y ago
> Pretending GPT is just using a percent chance that some token should show up next is absurd. It's almost a hundred layers of neural pathways. That is literally what it's doing though. "Pretending a CPU is just adding 0
803.
by dvt 4y ago
> high dimensional representation of meaning This is word salad. I don't even know what you mean by "meaning," but an embedding is simply an array filled with a bunch of floating point numbers[1] and, importantly, these em
804.
by dvt 4y ago
> its working at a level of meaning and intent LLMs work on tokens, which, for the most part, are words (longer words are generally split up into multiple tokens). Using concepts like "meaning" and "intent" muddies th
805.
by dvt 4y ago
> because we spent an entire semester at the university in one class working on these two. Yeah, the Math Overflow answers are a bit sparse, and I think the Euler formulation (while clever) is a bit of a red herring and might be circular
806.
by dvt 4y ago
This is super cool, I've never seen it before! Do you know what this is called so I can look up a proof/theorem on it?
807.
by dvt 4y ago
Hm, yeah, all of a sudden I think I'm more on Grabowski's side. This is extremely weasel-worded: "Opinions about the motif vary; some cultural studies scholars believe it promotes Polish–Jewish dialogue or view it as harmle
808.
by dvt 4y ago
I'm not sure even Grabowski agrees, here's what he first says about it: > Anthropologist Erica Lehrer wrote about this phenomenon in Kazimierz (a center of Jewish life in Kraków) in her 2013 book Jewish Poland Revisited, uncove
809.
by dvt 4y ago
The article that Grabowski[1] wrote seems extremely heavy-handed and reeks of having an axe to grind. I am no fan of Wikipedia or their incessant edit wars, bad information and bickering, but Prof. Grabowski does not seem tempered in his
810.
by dvt 4y ago
> It seems to me to posit that to understand requires that the understandee is human. Here's a thought experiment. Suppose we make first contact tomorrow, and we meet some intelligent aliens. What are some questions you would ask th

More ›