dwohnitmok

8 ms·

61.
by dwohnitmok 7mo ago
> but you'll still observe small variations due to the limited precision of float numbers No. Floating number arithmetic is deterministic. You don't get different answers for the same operations on the same machine just because
62.
by dwohnitmok 7mo ago
Arbitrary filtering of candidates doesn't reduce the effort that it takes. Let's say 1 out of 1000 of the candidates you see is what you need. The total amount of effort to find the right candidate is still the same. But throwing
63.
by dwohnitmok 7mo ago
Kokotajlo still believes we get AGI in the next few years. These are his most updated numbers at the moment: https://www.aifuturesmodel.com/
64.
by dwohnitmok 7mo ago
Not quite. Kokotajlo quit because he didn't think OpenAI would be good stewards of AGI (non-disparagement wasn't in the picture yet). As part of his exit OpenAI asked him to sign a non-disparagement as a condition of keeping his e
65.
by dwohnitmok 7mo ago
Kokotajlo gave up all his shares in OpenAI as part of his refusal to sign a nondisparagement agreement with OpenAI.
66.
by dwohnitmok 7mo ago
Really? I view the original title as a very good summary of the overall point of the article and this new title as fairly misleading. > It can be debated whether arena.ai is a suitable metric for AGI, a strong case can probably be made f
67.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
> Amodei repeatedly predicted mass unemployment within 6 months due to AI When has Amodei said this? I think he may have said something for 1 - 5 years. But I don't think he's said within 6 months.
68.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
Note that the parameters to SHAP can be things other than the model parameters (e.g. model inputs), it's very not obvious what those should be. Indeed that's often the central problem for interpretability (what are my actual featu
69.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
SHAP would be absurdly expensive to do for even tiny models (naive SHAP scales exponentially in the number of parameters; you can sample your coalitions to do better but those samples are going to be ridiculously sparse when you're tal
70.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
In a twist of irony, it feels like this entire post is also written with AI.
71.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
Gemini is an LLM. It playing chess is not relying on a non-LLM module of some sort. I'm just saying that as an LLM, Gemini has a peculiar profile compared to other LLMs (likely an artifact of its post-training process). In particular G
72.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
> The two illegal moves = forfeit is an odd rule which the authors of the benchmarks (which in this case was Claude Code) added[1] for mysterious reasons. In competitive play if you play an illegal move you forfeit the game. This is not
73.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
It's enough to reliably beat amateur (e.g. maia-1900) chess engines.
74.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
1800 FIDE players do make illegal moves. I believe they make about one to two orders of magnitude less illegal moves than Gemini 3 does here. IIRC the usual statistic for expert chess play is about 0.02% of expert chess games have an illega
75.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
> That’s a devastating benchmark design flaw I think parent simply missed until their later reply that the benchmark includes rated engines.
76.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
The LLMs do play rated engines (maia and eubos). They provide the baselines. Gemini e.g. consistently beats the different maia versions. The rest is taken care of by elo. That is they then play each other as well, but it is not really possi
77.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
Not anymore. This benchmark is for LLM chess ability: https://github.com/lightnesscaster/Chess-LLM-Benchmark?tab=r... . LLMs are graded according to FIDE rules so e.g. two illegal moves in a game leads to an immediate l
78.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
This is an extremely confusing snippet from the interview for Patel to put as the title. Amodei does not mean that things are plateauing (i.e. the exponential will no longer hold), but rather uses "end" closer to the notion of &qu
79.
by dwohnitmok 8mo ago
I'm curious what you heard exactly. As far as I can tell, centaur chess looks completely dead. Nobody ever wins anymore in the ICCF championships (which I believe is the most prestigious centaur chess venue, but am not sure). This is n
80.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
In this case Betteridge's Law is wrong. The article (quite convincingly) argues "yes."
81.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
That's an interesting alternative perspective. AI skeptics say that LLMs have no theory of mind. That essay argues that the only thing an LLM (or at least a base model) has is a theory of mind.
82.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
> but I could see how they would resonate with a LessWronger using ChatGPT as a conversation partner until it gave the expected responses: The flattery about being the first to discover a solution, encouragement to post on LessWrong, and
83.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
The excerpts we do see are indicative of a very specific kind of interaction that is common with many modern LLMs. It has four specific attributes (these are taken verbatim from https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2pkNCvBtK
84.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
> elements of a monoid can themselves be groups Whoops I meant monoids. I started with groups of groups but it was annoying to find meaningful inverse elements.
85.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
My other reply is so long that HN collapsed it, but addresses your particular question about how to create the mapping between finite-length strings and the real numbers. Here's another lens that doesn't answer that question, but
86.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
> Can you exhibit a bijection between finite-length strings and the real numbers? It seems like any purported such function could be diagonalized. Let's start with a mirror statement. Can you exhibit an bijection between definitions
87.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
> I am sorry we disagree about this. If you think I am missing anything I am open to thinking about it more. I am sorry I'm responding to this so late. I very much appreciate the dialogue you're extending here! I don't thi
88.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
> I think you're overthinking it. No, this is a standard fallacy that is covered in most introductory mathematical logic courses (under Tarski's undefinability of truth result). > Define a "number definition system&quot
89.
by dwohnitmok 9mo ago
This is not necessarily true. It is possible for all real numbers (and indeed all mathematical objects) to be definable under ZFC. It is also possible for that not to be the case. ZFC is mum on the issue. I've commented on this several
90.
by dwohnitmok 10mo ago
> I suspect you think more effort went into my comment than actually did. I spent less than 60 seconds on: clicking two or three buttons, typing out the names I saw from the other window, then scrolling down and seeing the 501(c)3. This

More ›