resource0x

9 ms·

61.
by resource0x 3y ago
The failure to create anything resembling AGI can be easily explained away by concerns about the safety of AGI. This can be done in perpetuity. Google explains its AI failures along the same lines.
62.
by resource0x 3y ago
> A week ago I was saying that it's likely the leading AI company in 5 years time hasn't been founded yet. I bet that in 5 years, we won't be talking about AI at all. Whatever can be squeezed from current technologies, wil
63.
by resource0x 3y ago
Are you sure they will be "consistently candid" in their autobiographies? :-)
64.
by resource0x 3y ago
I fully agree with that. But if you read this thread or any other recent HN thread, you will see "AGI... AGI... AGI" as if it's a real thing. The whole openai debacle with firing/rehiring sama revolves around (non-existe
65.
by resource0x 3y ago
But they (AI folks) keep talking about "safety" all the time. What is their definition of safety then? What are they trying to achieve?
66.
by resource0x 3y ago
The internet is not called "AGI". It's the notion of AGI that brought "safety" to the forefront. AI folks became victims of their hype. Renaming the term into something less provocative/controversial (ML?) can
67.
by resource0x 3y ago
How the thing can be called "AGI" if it has no concept of truth? Is it like "60% accuracy is not an AGI, but 65% is"? The argument can be made that 90% accuracy is worse than 60% (people will become more confident to tru
68.
by resource0x 3y ago
Factually inaccurate results = unsafety. This cannot be fixed under the current model, which has no concept of truth. What kind of "safety" are they talking about then?
69.
by resource0x 3y ago
No one in this company is "consistently candid" about anything.
70.
by resource0x 3y ago
Occam's razor: duped the investors about the technical and financial prospects of the company. No AGI next year (or ever).
71.
by resource0x 3y ago
Not _very_ wrong, just duping investors about the technical and financial prospects of the company. Nothing serious /s
72.
by resource0x 3y ago
Remember this? “We should stop training radiologists now. It's just completely obvious that within five years, deep learning is going to do better than radiologists.” Geoffrey Hinton, 2016 (while working for Google). I speculate that t
73.
by resource0x 3y ago
My gut feeling is that GPT-5 will be delayed indefinitely because it has no chance to live up to the hype.
74.
by resource0x 3y ago
They need a pause to diffuse the hype thus lowering unrealistic expectations. I can expect a slew of articles to that effect shortly. Otherwise, people will continue to expect miracles, so whatever Google may release will be a huge disappoi
75.
by resource0x 3y ago
All work and no fun
76.
by resource0x 3y ago
Prime numbers are not especially interesting. E.g. all groups of prime size are cyclic. But each composite number has its own "character". The "interesting" number among primes is 2. Almost every theorem about prime numb
77.
by resource0x 3y ago
"Russian people overwhelmingly support the invasion" is a statement of fact - which is based on overwhelming evidence (this includes personal communications). I'm not talking about the government. At the same time, I'm n
78.
by resource0x 3y ago
Did you talk to them? Based on your location, I can guess your sample is not representative. There's overwhelming support for the invasion. People are brainwashed by propaganda. I had to unsubscribe from Russian social networks - I can
79.
by resource0x 3y ago
> Is Rust merely the It-Thing at the moment that people are mimetically/socially driven to latch onto? I think so. Sociological phenomenon initially bootstrapped by a small number of "influencers". Same with golang 10 year
80.
by resource0x 3y ago
> Have you seen the napkin project? Will take a look, thanks! I think I understand your point. I want to thank you for the productive discussion!
81.
by resource0x 3y ago
> the reason the textbooks are written like that is because that's what was helpful to the authors when they were learning The author writing a book after 30 years of learning, thinking, talking with other people cannot easily recon
82.
by resource0x 3y ago
You start with a controversial statement ("Math is the study of formal systems"), and the rest follows. Not everyone agrees with this viewpoint. I think algebraic formalization provides just one perspective of looking at things, b
83.
by resource0x 3y ago
My arguments is: whoever understands linear algebra has to be able to explain it to anyone having a sufficient math background. The failure to do so signals the lack of understanding. Presenting it as a pure algebraic game cleverly avoids t
84.
by resource0x 3y ago
>... rather than relying on the crutch of intuition from Euclidean space Euclidean space is not a good crutch, but there are other, much more meaningful, crutches available, like (orthogonal) polynomials, Fourier series etc. Not mentioni
85.
by resource0x 3y ago
The first book was written in 1942 - it's mentioned explicitly in LADR. It doesn't mean the concepts didn't exist - they did, Frobenius even built a brilliant theory around them (representation theory), but the subject was de
86.
by resource0x 3y ago
Your post represents a common viewpoint, but I don't agree with it. I'm a retired programmer trying to learn algebra for the purposes of education only. I am not supposed to take an exam or use the material in any material way, so
87.
by resource0x 3y ago
> Isn‘t there anybody close to the Feynman of Linear Algebra? No. The subject is too young (the first book dedicated to Linear Algebra was written in 1942). Since then, there have been at least 3 generations of textbooks (the first one w
88.
15 Times Faster Than Llama 2: Introducing DeciLM(deci.ai)
2 points by resource0x 3y ago|0 comments
89.
Dick Hyman's Century of Jazz(youtube.com)
2 points by resource0x 3y ago|0 comments
90.
by resource0x 3y ago
And then erase all intermediate steps and just publish the end result - which no one will understand (including yourself a couple of years later), but that's OK /s

More ›