dwohnitmok

3 ms·

1.
by dwohnitmok 7d ago
> You don't have to let the ATP do everything, you can speed it up immensely with well placed assertions where it struggles. This is basically what you do with Dafny. I'm not very happy with this, not least of which is because
2.
by dwohnitmok 7d ago
This significantly helps compile times, but will still end up with something far slower than Bend. What was I was talking about and presumably what LightMachine is talking about is how Bend is significantly more verbose than Rocq because ev
3.
by dwohnitmok 8d ago
I would encourage you to think more deeply about the assertions you're making here. I've done a fair amount of work in this space as well, specifically my main toolbox of formal verification tools in the past have been Rocq, Idris
4.
by dwohnitmok 9d ago
Interesting. This was one of the two areas the AI as Normal Technology folks specifically called out as a bet that AI will not outperform humans at. > Concretely, we propose two such areas: forecasting and persuasion. We predict that AI
5.
by dwohnitmok 12d ago
Well it's because the article is AI-generated. Same with the Sacks tweet that was on the front page yesterday. There's a deep irony that all of these "anti-doom" pieces are entirely AI generated.
6.
by dwohnitmok 13d ago
What quote from 2024 are you thinking of here? > The insiders that said every tech workers would be unemployed in 6 months and every white colar would be unemployed in 12 months like 2 years ago?
7.
by dwohnitmok 13d ago
Eh. This entire tweet smacks of being AI generated. It has a huge amount of LLM-isms. I wouldn't be surprised if Sacks just prompted an LLM to just come up with whatever rebuttal to whatever the regulation side comes up (given the big
8.
by dwohnitmok 14d ago
> Everyone should slow down AI development except for me Who's said this? And then more broadly I guess who's implied this? Very curious if there are specific articles/posts prompting this.
9.
by dwohnitmok 22d ago
The structure of Lean does impose that. The code isn't being run, it's being type checked. And that's it. The overwhelming majority of Lean code is never run. It exists only to be type checked (because type checking is equiva
10.
by dwohnitmok 22d ago
Yes but that report wasn't written by OpenAI. It was written by three independent researchers. OpenAI seems to have tried to hide it.
11.
by dwohnitmok 22d ago
Reuters reports that OpenAI tried to keep this one under wraps: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/openai-agents-hijacked-...
12.
by dwohnitmok 23d ago
> Astra’s progress helps clarify which AI capabilities are out of reach and which questions remain open. Okay. But I don't think this entire article at all explained which AI capabilities remain out of reach. Did I miss something? O
13.
by dwohnitmok 26d ago
> It’s highly nontrivial to verify that a 250k loc Lean program actually represents that which it claims. Generally you only need to look at 10-100 lines (unless you have a highly novel theorem that essentially invents a new field of mat
14.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
That paper has had a pretty turbulent reception and looks pretty conclusively wrong at this point. It used an incorrect theoretical framing that assumed that data was being replaced rather than accumulated as a result of more training (see
15.
Brief independent investigation of agent behavior in OpenAI/Hugging Face hack(metr.org)
4 points by dwohnitmok 1mo ago|1 comments
16.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
Yes. Presumably you're referring to my use of the word "level". I mean here basically every "level" as denoted by the order of locations and places on the town map that you get (which is usually +- some other locati
17.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
> GPT-4(?) was capable of beating Pokemon 18 months ago but models only became capable of beating it without a harness in the last six months...? GPT-4 was decidedly not capable of beating Pokemon 18 months ago. I doubt it would be able
18.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
> The responses to the pricing aspect of this announcement around the web disagree. Which responses are you thinking of?
19.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
That's not the norm that's being broken here. Most DB technologies provide a "pay for updates, if you stop paying you keep the last version you paid for" model. This is how Oracle prices its DB tech, this is how jOOQ is
20.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
No, not at least for Photoshop. If you have the subscription version and fail to pay it downgrades you to the free version which has more limited editing capacity but still has read capacities. More broadly I think the only subscription pro
21.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
Oh man. If this lobste.rs comment is correct about the subscription terms then this feels like a really hard pill to swallow: https://lobste.rs/s/ykq7ym/rethinking_database_programming#c... Still might be viable,
22.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
I'm wary of languages that seek to own the database. In particular, the claim "Coexist with SQL" seems a bit suspect given that e.g. sum types have a custom binary encoding, which likely makes them difficult to interop with f
23.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
To be clear the happy path for taxis for me was fine. When things worked things were quite smooth. But this thread is primarily about when things went off the happy path. If a taxi didn't show up, I'd usually have a disinterested
24.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
Infuriating as it is, this is still better than with the bad old days of taxis, which usually had even worse resolution and accountability. It sounds like people don't quite grasp just how bad the taxi experience was.
25.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
> For some programs, the shortest descriptions of what they do are the programs themselves. There is almost no real-world program for which this is true. One corollary of this would be that it is impossible to refactor the program to be
26.
by dwohnitmok 1mo ago
> I don't think I understand why they aren't leveraging the increased speed to do batching to serve more customers at a "normal" tok/s. There's some technical hypotheses about it that other people are offeri
27.
by dwohnitmok 2mo ago
Sure. I'm mainly curious who beepbooptheory is thinking of.
28.
by dwohnitmok 2mo ago
> Everyday we see articles exactly like his by different people (or at least I do), but none attract the same kind of distinct attention. Who else does a detailed financial breakdown like Zitron and thinks things are as corrupt/fish
29.
by dwohnitmok 2mo ago
> Nonsense. The "weights" in "models" refer to probabilities. No they don't. They refer to the weights used for weighted sums. The weights don't have to even between 0 and 1.
30.
by dwohnitmok 2mo ago
> political commentary from someone No it depends on what they choose to answer. canyon289's account self-describes as Bayesian, a hallmark of rationalists, one of whose taglines is "politics is the mind-killer". Nonethele

More ›