lisper

42 ms·

631.
23andMe's failure: A warning for genetic data privacy(thehill.com)
7 points by lisper 2y ago|1 comments
632.
by lisper 2y ago
One factor is the format: it's a time-trial event, not a head-to-head race. So if a rider dies, it's hard to pin the blame on anyone but the rider, who clearly knew what they were signing up for.
633.
by lisper 2y ago
This article leaves so many unanswered questions, starting with the elephant in the room: how accurate is it? (Or how accurate do they expect it to be?) I found the answer here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clo
634.
by lisper 2y ago
Yeah, this. Anyone who criticizes this project is simply revealing their ignorance of what it takes to build a product like this. Super-impressive. And the web-site looks top-notch too (though there is some constructive criticism in othe
635.
by lisper 2y ago
Just in case anyone besides me was wondering, he's 18 (the article didn't say). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukesh_Dommaraju
636.
by lisper 2y ago
There are two problems with this. First, writing something down in English is very different from formalizing it. Natural language interacts with human brains in all kinds of complicated ways that we do not fully understand, so just becaus
637.
by lisper 2y ago
> A computer can not emulate a person’s brain. Earlier you wrote: > Can a computer beat Magnuson with the number of computations the computer can do limited to within one order of magnitude of what a human can do in the allotted time?
638.
by lisper 2y ago
Martians!
639.
by lisper 2y ago
> We can approximately solve these systems with computers. Yes, but with quantum measurements you cannot even approximate. Your predictions for e.g. a two-state system with equal amplitudes for the two states will be exactly right exact
640.
by lisper 2y ago
You have to either postulate randomness or describe how it arises from determinism. I don't see any other logical possibility. BTW, see this: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906015 for a valiant effort to ex
641.
by lisper 2y ago
Sure. So?
642.
by lisper 2y ago
> many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is also unfalsifiable Yes, that's true. > all of them have deep problems Some are deeper than others.
643.
by lisper 2y ago
> humans did No. Not humans. One human. > The discussion is about human intelligence in general (particularly applied to bright people) not about my own intelligence and its limitations. OK, but if you're going to talk about h
644.
by lisper 2y ago
Well, yeah, maybe. There's a reason that the Measurement Problem is called what it is.
645.
by lisper 2y ago
Yes. So? What does that have to do with modeling measurements , i.e. the macroscopic process of humans doing experiments and observing the results?
646.
by lisper 2y ago
Well, yeah, obviously. But my point is that you do need a solution to the measurement problem in order to model measurements in any way other than simply punting and introducing randomness as a postulate.
647.
by lisper 2y ago
No, because the original map-vs-territory discussion had to do with the wave function: > Is the wavefunction epistemic or ontological? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42383854 Now we're talking about measureme
648.
by lisper 2y ago
> Yes. It’s a basic result proven in any mathematical logic course at the senior or beginning graduate level. OK, but note that you've moved the goal posts here. Your original question was: > Can an AI come up with the Incomplet
649.
by lisper 2y ago
> You don't need to make a random choice as part of your physical model You do if you want to model individual quantum measurements.
650.
by lisper 2y ago
The whole point of Turing Machines is to eliminate all of these different kinds of uncertainty. There is in point of actual physical fact no such thing as a Turing Machine. Digital computers are really analog under the hood, but they ar
651.
by lisper 2y ago
Yes, all this is true, but I think you're still missing the point I'm trying to make. Classical mechanics succumbs to statistics without any compromises in terms of being able to make reliable predictions using a TM. But quantum
652.
by lisper 2y ago
That's true, but "less strict" is understating the case pretty seriously. It's not enough for experimental physicists to lack free will. To rescue local hidden variables, nothing in the universe can have free will, n
653.
by lisper 2y ago
Power is not the point. The point is just that probabilistic TM's (i.e. TMs with a random oracle) are different . For example, the usual proof of the uncomputability of the halting problem does not apply to PTMs. The proof can be g
654.
by lisper 2y ago
> How do you know this? I don't. But it seems like a plausible hypothesis, and I see no compelling evidence to the contrary. > Can an AI or Turing Machine or whatever do the same? Can you?
655.
by lisper 2y ago
For QM it can be shown that there are no hidden variables, at least no local ones [1]. Quantum randomness really cannot be modeled by a TM. You need a random oracle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
656.
by lisper 2y ago
Well, no. The measurements are the things that actually happen , the events that comprise reality. The distribution may be part of the map, but it is definitely not the territory.
657.
by lisper 2y ago
No, this has nothing to do with ontology vs epistemology. That's a philosophical problem. The problem here is that a measurement is a sample from a random distribution. A TM cannot emulate that. It can compute the distribution, but
658.
by lisper 2y ago
> Of course you can model quantum measurements! No, you can't. You can statistically model the results of multiple quantum measurements in the aggregate but you cannot model the physical process of a single measurement beca
659.
by lisper 2y ago
> Turing machines are only “universal” in the sense that they can represent any statement of mathematical logic That's not quite right. TM's in general are not universal. The "universality" of TMs has to do with the
660.
by lisper 2y ago
Well, let's see... NOT(FORALL(x): my-hat(x) -> green(x)) EXISTS(x): NOT(my-hat(x) -> green(x)) ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification#Negat... EXISTS(x): NOT(NOT(my-hat(x)) OR green(x)) ;

More ›