sebzim4500

3 ms·

1.
by sebzim4500 7d ago
You're missing the part of your brain that wants to be pedantic more than it wants to understand someone.
2.
by sebzim4500 7d ago
You can have an infinite number of numbers on both sides. E.g. you can ask for a number between 0 and 1,1/2,1/3,... (which gives you an infinitesimal)
3.
by sebzim4500 8d ago
In an ideal world, the government would sell some of whatever shares it gets at good times to pay off debt, for example when interest is high just before a tranche of government bonds expire
4.
by sebzim4500 9d ago
They could accept either I suppose
5.
by sebzim4500 9d ago
Doesn't Switzerland do this instead of capital gains? Makes sense IMO, much better to tax wealth than discourage transactions.
6.
by sebzim4500 10d ago
99.9% of the time you are right, but in the long tails (construction works, major road damage, temporary road markings that contradict permanent signs) I could see this kind of architecture being useful.
7.
by sebzim4500 12d ago
The obvious argument is that natural organisms are restricted in ways that artificial ones are not (e.g. natural viruses are not selected to kill their host too quickly, natural selection can only reach solutions which can be reached increm
8.
by sebzim4500 13d ago
I'm sure many have tried but it sounds pretty hard. E.g. optimising for less LOC will lead to horrific code golfing. In reality you need a very complicated optimisation objective that trades off all those factors, I'm not surprise
9.
by sebzim4500 15d ago
This sounds really cool, can you explain how you do this?
10.
by sebzim4500 15d ago
The offer was for him to do for their proof what he had done to Anthropic's, he would clean up the proof and extract human-understandable concepts from it. If he did that work he would deserve author credit IMO.
11.
by sebzim4500 15d ago
I think their 'images' use cases were pretty representative of what normies use it for. Honestly though they need to hire whoever did those Google ads back in the day.
12.
by sebzim4500 15d ago
Well all we have are vague accusations without evidence and a very specific denial also without evidence, so I guess just believe whatever you want.
13.
by sebzim4500 15d ago
This is just mental illness at this point. I don't blame the mathematicians that have found a way to get attention from the mainstream press for once, but we should not fall for it here. 1. No one but OpenAI has produced a proof of NS
14.
by sebzim4500 15d ago
Well I'm sure if they find a millennium prize problem that no mathematician has worked on recently they will get right on publishing that.
15.
by sebzim4500 16d ago
What if it's interventionist but those interventions are clearly good? Think US in the 90s.
16.
by sebzim4500 16d ago
It's clearly not a superficial performance if you actually quit a high paying job.
17.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
Yes, when I said Dyson sphere I meant a Dyson swarm large enough to capture the majority of the sun's energy (which would necessarily mean they aren't all in the same plane) In any case that would make earth uninhabitable unless o
18.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
Is it? Clicking around the code it looks like a pretty mechanical translation of the statement on the millennium problem website. Assuming of course that you are willing to trust that e.g. the real numbers definition and API included in Mat
19.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
Are you asking if it uses additional axioms of `sorry` in the proof? It's easy to check that it doesn't by compiling it and telling lean to list the axioms.
20.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
How do you know he isn't? At least propose what you think he should do instead.
21.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
He is in line with the median AI researcher in this 2022 survey: https://wiki.aiimpacts.org/doku.php?id=ai_timelines:predicti...
22.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
Building a dyson sphere around the sun would kill us just as effectively as using a bioweapon.
23.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
You're right that no one needs this, but OpenAI are right that many people will use it
24.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
How so? OpenAI and anthropic have basically the same retention policies
25.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
I think they are pretty clear that they train on some prompts, given they sell the ability to be excluded
26.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
Don't they own a large portion of OpenAI? Things could be worse
27.
by sebzim4500 17d ago
Isn't the y axis just what portion of the open problems it could solve? The axis is unlabelled though, I'll give you that
28.
by sebzim4500 18d ago
Not if you pay to turn that off. We don't know if Tristan did.
29.
by sebzim4500 18d ago
My guess is that if you opt out of your data being included then they honour that instruction, but I wouldn't bet my business on it.
30.
by sebzim4500 18d ago
AI companies seem much more relaxed than most about their employees posting on twitter/HN about this stuff. I'm not sure if it's about building hype or if it's about retaining talent. Probably both.

More ›