ege_erdil

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ege_erdil 1y ago

   that's not the relevant data i'm talking about how much real-world data do you think went into the evolution of the human brain and all its learning algorithms? having 40 years of experience building software gives you no more ins
2. 2.▲
   by ege_erdil 1y ago

   we don't think it's just around the corner
3. 3.▲
   by ege_erdil 1y ago

   then i would disagree
4. 4.▲
   by ege_erdil 1y ago

   what makes you sure about that?
5. 5.▲
   by ege_erdil 1y ago

   how do you think humans cross that chasm?
6. 6.▲
   by ege_erdil 2y ago

   we're not sure if the actual data exactly matches our reconstruction, but one of the authors pointed out to us that we can exactly reproduce their scaling law if we make the mistake they made when fitting it to the data what they did w
7. 7.▲
   by ege_erdil 2y ago

   we didn't eyeball the graph, there are more accurate ways of extracting the data from a pdf file than that we did ask for the data but got no response until we published on arxiv what is supposed to be "salacious" about the a
8. 8.▲
   by ege_erdil 2y ago

   one of their three approaches does not replicate and it's because of a software bug in the optimizer they used, i don't know what else we were supposed to say
9. 9.▲
   by ege_erdil 2y ago

   we did and gave them a two week grace period to respond, but they only responded to us after we published on arxiv also, we didn't reconstruct the data using a ruler, you can automate that entire process so that it's much more rel