smokel

35 ms·

631.
by smokel 2y ago
For those who only read the comments, be sure to check out the videos by Yosh. They're amazing, and do a great job explaining how reinforcement learning works in practice: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3BZ6O_8LY http
632.
by smokel 2y ago
The original Busy Beaver paper by Tibor Radó ("On Non-Computable Functions") is actually quite easy and fun to read. For a modern version of the paper with some additional notes, see https://data.jigsaw.nl/Rado_196
633.
by smokel 2y ago
Oh yes, there have been many intermediate steps, it's a fascinating search in itself. I'd love to have a book detailing the history of shortest path algorithms. Let's hope Knuth has time to add it to TAOCP.
634.
by smokel 2y ago
How exactly is the internet not interacting with photons and electrons in the physical world?
635.
by smokel 2y ago
Rome2Rio seems to find an optimal route, and the problem discussed in this post is about finding an optimal flow . Both are fascinating problems, but quite different. Finding shortest paths was typically solved with Dijkstra's algori
636.
by smokel 2y ago
A very nice summary of the current state of affairs! Depending on the codebase one will be working on, it is probably beneficial to have lived through this entire history, so that one can discern which paradigm is hype or here to stay. I wo
637.
by smokel 2y ago
I'm not sure if politics and media have changed all that much. Is it a possibility that your perspective has changed, now that you are wiser and see more than before?
638.
by smokel 2y ago
Back when comp.lang.lisp was a thing, I once misread a post by Erik Naggum to state that incompetence should be punishable by law. I'd love to live in a world like that.
639.
by smokel 2y ago
It would be tremendously helpful if young people were told that next to stories and fairytales, there is entropy, randomness and incompetence. It took me a few years of life experience to understand that the latter three typically explain l
640.
by smokel 2y ago
I have a suspicion that "flow" (or visual movement) has similar snobist connotations :) I'm not saying that snobbery in art is bad, by the way. I just couldn't find the right words for these concepts being social constr
641.
by smokel 2y ago
I often wonder what role snobbery plays in the acceptance or formation of these kinds of rules. An amateur would simply point their camera at the subject, and be done with it. To show that one has actually read a book on art, or at least t
642.
by smokel 2y ago
Writing out a design before starting to code is often helpful, especially when working in teams. A high-level design is best not written in code, but in a separate document. Writing documentation in tickets is just plain silly, IMNSHO. Wri
643.
by smokel 2y ago
> All real people (not machines with lossless recall) are actually the second case, even if they think otherwise. I tend to agree, but I suppose that the level of lossiness varies from person to person, and depends on training and conc
644.
by smokel 2y ago
Allow me to try again: in the first case you actually see the details in your mind, and you can reason with them, by separating out single details, focus on them, and reproduce them in a meaningful way. This would allow an artist to form a
645.
by smokel 2y ago
Most certainly. In the first case one can actually use data to base decisions on. In the latter, one is merely hallucinating something which has less information value.
646.
by smokel 2y ago
It's probably impossible to tell the difference (which would explain the lack of understanding of opposing groups in this thread), unless one tests their ability to actually see the details instead of merely believing that one sees t
647.
by smokel 2y ago
Perhaps you are looking for prosopagnosia or "face blindness"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia
648.
by smokel 2y ago
How can you be sure that you actually see the details, and that you are not merely experiencing the feeling of seeing those details? Have you tried drawing the Mona Lisa from various angles? To what level of detail can you comfortably re
649.
by smokel 2y ago
Seconded. It is unfortunate that social media polarises the two camps. I'm happy that people start considering this subject as a "spectrum", which allows for some more interesting discussions. What I find strange is that so
650.
by smokel 2y ago
Ask these people to actually draw or paint the apples, and it quickly shows that they do not do lighting and shading correctly. Even with a lot of training. Just look at art history. Only very few people managed to render things somewha
651.
by smokel 2y ago
I wonder where you learned that. To my knowledge, there are only very few artists who work that way. Source: can draw pretty well myself, do not use this method.
652.
by smokel 2y ago
Having destructible objects is in no way possible on contemporary hardware, unless you simplify the physics to the extreme. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement? Recognising objects for what they are has only recently become so
653.
by smokel 2y ago
It is quite similar to the infinite monkey theorem, and as it does require infinite time, it is indeed slightly nonsensical.
654.
by smokel 2y ago
All information is freely available somewhere in /dev/random. It is worth some value to share the more interesting offsets. Now I'm not saying that capitalism is the best way to distribute this value, but at least some eff
655.
UUNA TEK 3.0 High-End All-in-One Pen Plotter Drawing Robots(idrawpenplotter.com)
1 points by smokel 2y ago|0 comments
656.
by smokel 2y ago
I tried to find some source for this, but could not trace it back further than a YouTube video from 2016 [1], which is very light on details, to say the least. This kind of "research" does not really warrant the amount of inspirat
657.
by smokel 2y ago
As someone else points out, training is slightly more involved, but I also find that these smaller models are next to worthless compared to the larger ones. There are probably some situations where it suffices to use a small model, but for
658.
by smokel 2y ago
The "Four Yorkeshiremen" sketch by Monty Python always lightens my mood when this kind of bragging comes up.
659.
by smokel 2y ago
I find that I have to repeat myself. You seem to be using a kind of reasoning that I don't think is very productive. Are you aware of this? I could spend some time explaining where I think you go off the rails, but I'm afraid yo
660.
by smokel 2y ago
Yes, but those anecdotes don't prove much, do they? I prefer to take my scientific input from peer reviewed papers, not Twitter or YouTube. One random counterexample for your claim: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3658

More ›