gog-ma-gog

7 ms·

1.
by gog-ma-gog 4mo ago
uhhhh this seems completely fucking insane?
2.
by gog-ma-gog 3y ago
This actually seems like a decent compromise. Sam and Greg can retain velocity on the product side without having to spin up a whole new operation in direct competition with their old levers of power, and Ilya + co can remain in possession
3.
by gog-ma-gog 4y ago
the only thing significant figures seem to be optimizing for is debate about the right way to use significant figures in my experience, it’s always better to eschew them entirely and simply write an explicit error margin
4.
by gog-ma-gog 6y ago
Articles like this on the internet are usually completely garbage, but Natalie is a really fantastic journalist. If you’re worried about woo because of the title, there isn’t any here (and quanta magazine is generally great for coverage of
5.
by gog-ma-gog 6y ago
Rationalists seem extremely common amongst the $300k+/year software engineers I know. If that isn’t “successful”, then I’m not sure we’re using the same word anymore. You can argue that the causal arrow doesn’t point in the right dire
6.
by gog-ma-gog 6y ago
Scott Alexander is his pseudonym, which he freely shares, and he blogs about his psychiatry work.
7.
by gog-ma-gog 6y ago
I claimed no such thing :D
8.
by gog-ma-gog 6y ago
The number of people “qualified” to go to Harvard is probably more than 10x the current capacity of Harvard, though. Maintaining scarcity/exclusivity in the brand is more valuable than servicing the number of people technically qualif
9.
by gog-ma-gog 7y ago
The subtlety here is that NNs do have a model, but it’s hard to see. Not just any neural network can perform as well as GPT-2–a very specific architecture can. That architecture, coupled with the data it’s trained on, implicitly represe
10.
by gog-ma-gog 7y ago
To elaborate a bit: people like Marcus tend to overload/move the goal posts with what the word “understand” means. I kinda feel like in a world where we have perfectly conversational chat bots that are capable of AI complete tasks—-th
11.
by gog-ma-gog 7y ago
https://nostalgebraist.tumblr.com/post/189965935059/human-ps... for an orthogonal point of view—-I feel Marcus is a bit too embroiled in this particular debate to make level-headed criticism on the merits/pot
12.
by gog-ma-gog 7y ago
iirc, no one has been able to replicate this group’s results. The “X17 particle” wiki page has a good review.
13.
by gog-ma-gog 7y ago
*in mice
14.
by gog-ma-gog 8y ago
Lorentz symmetry was already kinda-sorta baked into Maxwell’s equations. It was only a matter of time before someone took it seriously.
15.
by gog-ma-gog 8y ago
To my knowledge, there are still no tasks a D-Wave is better at (asymptotically) than a classical machine
16.
by gog-ma-gog 8y ago
It’s also a matter of signal to noise. Not very many things (other than neutrinos) are detectable when you point a detector straight down into the earth. Contrariwise, you’re swamped with signal when you point a detector at space.
17.
by gog-ma-gog 8y ago
...yes? Why is it not surprising?