hakuseki

17 ms·

31.
by hakuseki 4y ago
They could be overfitting somehow, but I don't see how you get that from the quoted paragraph. Of course they need to use the same subject (i.e. human brain) for training and testing. Otherwise one would need to assume that different p
32.
by hakuseki 4y ago
I'd really like to see the mouse (or other nonhuman animal) version of this experiment. In the human experiment we can see how the input and output represent the same categories of object. I think it would be really interesting to what
33.
by hakuseki 4y ago
Have you browsed through this list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Point-and-click_adven...
34.
by hakuseki 4y ago
A logarithmic representation is great for multiplication, but adding numbers becomes an expensive operation.
35.
by hakuseki 4y ago
The term you're looking for is "simply-connected set." Simply-connected sets and compact sets are both sometimes informally described as "sets with no holes," but the definition of "holes" is different in
36.
by hakuseki 4y ago
This headline contradicts the linked article. The HN headline (Heavier cars are safer for their drivers, but far deadlier for everyone else) includes the non-driving passengers with "everyone else," implying that heavier cars are
37.
by hakuseki 4y ago
It seems to me that the two formal systems can disagree about BB(n) for some n without disagreeing about the state of any given Turing machine at any specific time step. For example, ZFC+CH might non-constructively predict that some machine
38.
by hakuseki 4y ago
I'm not quite grasping how to use this. I tried uploading a photograph and erasing part of it. But instead of painting in the erased portion, it left the erased area blank and replaced my photograph with an entirely new image.
39.
by hakuseki 4y ago
That is not quite the right calculation. To see this, try plugging 0.75 into the same formula to get Stockfish's expected score. The result is about 0.3545. If this were the correct formula, then the two expected scores should sum to 1
40.
by hakuseki 4y ago
To clarify, my question was basically asking whether the author of the parent comment is satisfied by my comment.
41.
by hakuseki 4y ago
IANAP, but it seems to me that right now we are able to make the statement: "Angular momentum is conserved." If we were to give different names to different types of angular momentum, we could no longer say that. Instead we would
42.
by hakuseki 4y ago
This seems like a point in favor of models like REALM ( https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/08/realm-integrating-retrieva... ) which could allow for deletion of sensitive information without needing to retrain the model.
43.
by hakuseki 4y ago
> More employees also does not mean faster product development, every developer knows this is often the complete opposite. Maybe teams are more productive when their membership is stable. Either adding or removing developers mid-project
44.
by hakuseki 4y ago
Further thoughts: Alice and Bob must each choose an actual policy for how many confirmations they need before they actually commit to attack. We can number the messages like this: 1. Alice's first message 2. Bob's first message 3.
45.
by hakuseki 4y ago
I guess the idea is that Alice wants to be 100% certain that Bob will attack before she commits her own forces, and Bob similarly wants to be 100% certain that Alice will attack. This level of certainty is not achievable.
46.
by hakuseki 4y ago
Gravity wells are where most of the resources are. For example, Earth outmasses the asteroid belt by a factor of over 1,000.
47.
by hakuseki 4y ago
Yes, and that's why suspending the one car might seem counterintuitive. But that doesn't mean it's a bad solution.
48.
by hakuseki 4y ago
I really couldn't say. It does occur to me, though, that you are probably talking about the elementwise product, not the dot product. The dot product includes a reduce_sum step and outputs a scalar.
49.
by hakuseki 4y ago
It does sound silly at first, but I think suspending the one car is actually a rather elegant solution on several counts. 1. Easy to implement 2. Doesn't punish fleet scale (compare: suspending the whole fleet means a fleet that's
50.
by hakuseki 4y ago
I really don't find that einsum is less intuitive than reshape. Maybe they both take about the same time to learn the first time. And that's less time than it would take me to struggle through even a single function using reshape
51.
by hakuseki 5y ago
I'm not sure which part you're saying is unbounded, but everything looks bounded to me. A game is played in finite time, on hardware with bounded operations per second, and AFAIK the NES is a deterministic computer, so the solutio
52.
by hakuseki 5y ago
It's a decidable problem because the duration is bounded (by the best current time).
53.
by hakuseki 5y ago
Øyvind Thorsby also published a similar (somewhat easier) quiz a couple weeks ago: https://thorsbyprojects.tumblr.com/post/660029925870518272/a...
54.
by hakuseki 5y ago
I really like the world-building that went into this game but I wish it were more challenging. I think the absence of escape pods is rather telling: they are an unneeded feature, since save-scumming is the default.
55.
by hakuseki 5y ago
What about GPT-f? It's a language model that proved theorems in the metamath formal system.
56.
by hakuseki 5y ago
> there are only around 10,000,000 possible game-states after the first WBBWW You don't even need to go that far. After WBBW you are already reverting to normal alternating play. Maybe that's around 400,000 positions?
57.
by hakuseki 5y ago
GP doesn't seem to be saying that chess and brick-laying are equally difficult to automate. GP is saying that a belief in brick-laying AI represents no more contempt towards brick-layers than a belief in chess AI represents towards c
58.
by hakuseki 5y ago
Definitely could not have used Kolmogorov complexity, as it is uncomputable.
59.
by hakuseki 5y ago
I do not dispute this. My comment was about the linked paper [1] regarding equivalence of the halting problem and Kolmogorov complexity, not the SAT problem.
60.
by hakuseki 5y ago
The reductions in your linked paper [1] are not polynomial-time reductions.

More ›