jibal

21 ms·

211.
by jibal 3mo ago
non sequitur
212.
by jibal 3mo ago
non sequitur
213.
by jibal 3mo ago
I know what the policies are and I followed them. I also read the entire discussion on the talk page before making my change ... I doubt that you did. WP:BASICMATH says that this is not OR. If this were OR then even the "claimed"
214.
by jibal 3mo ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...
215.
by jibal 3mo ago
It's a counterexample, not a proof. A schoolchild can confirm it.
216.
by jibal 3mo ago
I removed the "claimed" weasel wording, and now others have followed up. The editors that don't understand math and don't realize how easily this counterexample can be confirmed have lost the debate -- not that there rea
217.
by jibal 3mo ago
Did you read what you responded to? The Collatz conjecture is almost certainly not false, so no "clean up" is possible.
218.
by jibal 3mo ago
They gave their "logic", such as it is ... and it's utterly irrational. Note that the "they" who published the counterexample on X is some rando mathematician (Levent Alpöge) working for Anthropic, not Anthropic the
219.
by jibal 3mo ago
> the fact that “will this AI cause harm” is, mathematically, an unanswerable question. No it isn't -- this is a fundamental misunderstanding. What is unanswerable is "For all x where x is an AI, will x cause harm?" ... bu
220.
by jibal 3mo ago
Finite machines such as FSMs (finite state machines) are a subset of TMs, so yes they are actual Turing Machines. What they aren't is UTMs ... universal Turing Machines that can emulate every TM.
221.
by jibal 3mo ago
Turing proved that no TM can determine whether all TMs halt ... not that no TM can determine whether some specific TM halts ... the difference a common misunderstanding of the proof. Analogously, while we can't prove that no AI is or i
222.
by jibal 3mo ago
Your meaning was clear ... Jtsummers bizarrely misparsed it.
223.
by jibal 3mo ago
Please offer proof of that obviously false claim.
224.
by jibal 3mo ago
It depends somewhat on the complexity of the language. Nim uses an interpreter but Nimony, which is destined to becomes Nim 3.0, uses your approach. It will be interesting to how hassles and performance play out there and whether they keep
225.
by jibal 3mo ago
TFA discusses this in detail. The point is memory errors in the generated code. The generated code is an output the compiler. Thus the OP counts these against the compiler--after all, that's his project, those bugs are real, and those
226.
by jibal 3mo ago
> Whether a text was written by a human or not is just a single bit of information. So you can't rule out its detectability a priori, since even the shortest text contains more information than that. This is word salad, a complete
227.
by jibal 3mo ago
The pompous response from zahlman is at least as bad ... accusing me of "casting aspersions" and then saying that I was "called out" by a comment that calls me a coward and tells me to "take a seat"? Can one po
228.
by jibal 3mo ago
Oh ... never mind! (In the voice of Gilda Radner.)
229.
by jibal 3mo ago
Gawd only knows who this guy thinks he's quoting in the nonsensical response.
230.
by jibal 3mo ago
So, bad arguments followed by even worse arguments. > I'll just point out that "so what" is not a counterargument. It really is. > Speed runners or chess champions or pi digit calculators don't confuse themselves w
231.
by jibal 3mo ago
Boomers? I'm a boomer who retired 8 years ago. The youngest boomers hit retirement age in 3 years. It's not boomers who are worried.
232.
by jibal 3mo ago
Paul Linebarger aka Cordwainer Smith, while not British and not in China in his early years, did spend a lot time in China and wrote original, inventive, and outright weird sf. A weird personal story: I was once in a bar (I'm virtually
233.
by jibal 3mo ago
You went deep ... and I for one appreciate it.
234.
by jibal 3mo ago
Why in the world is the OP's answer dead? Sometimes I really don't understand HN.
235.
by jibal 3mo ago
"useless" pure math often turns out to have scientific applications. And surely you don't mean all pure math, so your argument ends up being circular --- useless math is useless. You happen to think that this math is usel
236.
by jibal 3mo ago
That text is linked to a graph where the X axis is years.
237.
by jibal 3mo ago
Is capitalizing TFA, TCP/IP, URL, or ARPANET also against the rules? Hey just joking ... I had no idea that using capitalization for emphasis is against the guidelines ... I think it's quite a stretch to characterize it as "f
238.
by jibal 3mo ago
A lot of people mistake basic literacy for AI. Don't forget that LLMs are trained on human texts and replicate patterns within them.
239.
by jibal 3mo ago
He was disappointed in himself that he hadn't realized that the word recognition "algorithm" was just "every word starting with a-l" -- he had speculated that there was in fact some sort of linguistic algorithm to d
240.
by jibal 3mo ago
Fulminate? What a bizarre characterization. > but, honesty! Honestly I expect more maturity and less hostility from mods.

More ›