naasking

39 ms·

691.
by naasking 1y ago
What's hyperbolic, that protein folding is solved, or that it's going to be significant?
692.
by naasking 1y ago
LLMs are already superhuman at many tasks. You're also wrong about AI not accelerating AI development. There was at least one paper published this year showing just such a result. It's just beginning.
693.
by naasking 1y ago
> > - Socrates (399 BC) Context: Ancient Greece went into decline just 70 years after that date. Make of that what you will.
694.
by naasking 1y ago
> This indicates LLMs inability to reason and understand. No it doesn't, this is an overgeneralization.
695.
by naasking 1y ago
Artificial intelligence has solved protein folding. The downstream effects of that alone will be huge, and it's far from the only change coming.
696.
by naasking 1y ago
I think any improvements to productivity AI brings will also create uncertainty and disruption to employment, and maybe the latter is greater than the former, and investors see that.
697.
by naasking 1y ago
I think "free or low cost tier that doesn't rack up a $100,000 bill" would be pretty common actually, enough to warrant a prominent preset template/option in their UI. They'd probably save a lot in support requests
698.
by naasking 1y ago
dyn traits have quite a few restrictions if I'm reading the docs right. Like, dispatchable functions can't even have type parameters [1]. I wouldn't exactly call that "solved", although maybe a language with traits
699.
by naasking 1y ago
Crash on idle, interesting. Must be some timing issue related to down clocking, or maybe a voltage issue related to shutting off a core.
700.
by naasking 1y ago
Read the Haskell-specific follow-up which I mentioned, type classes have a correspondance with traits so the problems with this approach are the same: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2018/more-thoughts-on-the-expr...
701.
by naasking 1y ago
Sounds like this should be a standard workflow that's a very simple and visible option.
702.
by naasking 1y ago
> In rust you would add a NEW trait, which is brought in scope by those who need it. No, that's not sufficient if done naively as I think you're describing. You seem to be missing the context of this discussion as described by
703.
by naasking 1y ago
Reusability is a big part of it, but I also think languages are just a lot more abstract and expressive these days, so fewer lines of code goes further. Empirically, error count is correlated with lines of code, as are hallucinations, so th
704.
by naasking 1y ago
> The only differences are in naming choices Naming choices matter, as does syntax.
705.
by naasking 1y ago
> Traits have methods. How is that not adding new functions? If you add a method to a trait, every implementation of that trait has to be modified in the original source code. The point of the expression problem is that you want to be ab
706.
by naasking 1y ago
> One can, of course, also build an actual table indexed on operation and type as a data structure in just about any language and use it, and in a language like C++ the result may well be quite a bit nicer than using a class hierarchy. T
707.
by naasking 1y ago
The example in the article was very clear I thought: try to extend an interpreter with a new primitive (function call in the article) without changing the original interpreter's source code. I'm an FP language, you can't exte
708.
by naasking 1y ago
> Gödel showed that some theorems are unprovable in a consistent formal axiomatic system... ...of sufficient power, eg. that can model arithmetic with both addition and multiplication. I think the caveats are important because systems th
709.
by naasking 1y ago
> But as soon as he bought twitter, I realized he was an absolute moron who had never built or successfully software himself in his life So making one bad investment, whatever his reasons, means he's a moron? > but wanted to slin
710.
by naasking 1y ago
> How can you judge if it is bikeshedding or actual warranted issues if you don't have expertise? First and second order effects dominate almost everything. Always insisting on nuance therefore is statistically more likely to be bik
711.
by naasking 1y ago
> Sorry, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. My claim was pretty obviously about intentional multisensory feedback design of roads. > I think we're done here because you need to get an EKG as soon as possible. You&#
712.
by naasking 1y ago
I don't know what exactly Musk said on the topics you raise, I only know that he did say something like vision being the core problem and that lidar can't solve that problem (nor can any combination of other sensors we currently h
713.
by naasking 1y ago
> Designers use tecture not just for grip but to help communicate things to the driver. There's many subtler ones, but the most obvious one is the grooves you often find on the edge of highways that are used to warn you if you'
714.
by naasking 1y ago
Many of the big LLMs do RAG and will provide links to sources, eg. Bing/ChatGPT, Gemini Pro 2.5, etc.
715.
by naasking 1y ago
Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen him claim that using only vision is "first principles" thinking. However, relying only on vision can make sense once you realize that roads and signage and everything is literally design
716.
by naasking 1y ago
The first hypervisors were microkernels like L4. All of the fundamentals are in microkernel literature which stretches back to the 80s, though I don't think there's a need to read anything before L4 in the 90s.
717.
by naasking 1y ago
> Meanwhile, look at any two nerds arguing. It's always nuanced and over minute things that they'll always insist are very important (because often it is, but only at that level). Sorry, but no, nerds are huge bikeshedders, and
718.
by naasking 1y ago
> The raw mathematics isn't the hardest; most of this is settled by the end of the second year of undergraduate physics—things like Taylor series, ODEs, PDEs, special functions, a bit of linear algebra (no proofs needed, just use th
719.
by naasking 1y ago
Panel damage happens from more than just the sun, eg. hail, sand/dust, wind, branches, etc. Warranty doesn't cover that. > Why do think the two countries you mention as being capable of quickly building nuclear are in fact much
720.
by naasking 1y ago
> Even ignoring all of that, there's "time to first watt" - essentially if you break ground now, how quickly can you start producing power? Nuclear has years scale, wind and solar has weeks, if not days. France and China h

More ›