swid

11 ms·

91.
by swid 3y ago
This American Life just did a segment where the experts were very skeptical of both the theories presented in this article - that the first encounters near Spain were caused by a traumatic event of a matriarch, and also that orca pods would
92.
by swid 3y ago
I’ve know mountain climbers, hang glider/paraglider pilots, scuba divers, sky divers, and more and we pretty much say that exact thing. I’ve been casual acquaintances with people who have died doing extreme sports. Usually, the people
93.
by swid 3y ago
The post details how yearly subscriptions is one of the major issues, not monthly ones. There is already an update to monthly prices from 1.99 to 5.99, but the people on the yearly subscription locked in 0.99 or something like that. The 30
94.
by swid 4y ago
It's used for fine tuning a pre-trained model. This takes an LLM that is already capable of emulating lots of different kinds of personalities, and narrows it down to act more like the examples. Since the heavy lifting has already be
95.
by swid 4y ago
Or, it’s a simulator capable of producing output that is plausible for any level of intelligence up to the capabilities of the simulator. It could be capable of producing text similar to anyone from 0-140 IQ depending on the prompt. It wil
96.
by swid 4y ago
The exponential divergence formula is true but says less than you think - the same math would be true for human output; we are likely to find a few falsehoods in any non fiction book for the same reason, right?
97.
by swid 4y ago
> Fundamentally, if humanity is given data set A, it will eventually generate dataset A' of 'higher quality' than A. This same phenomenon happens with evolution, which is obviously not ‘intelligent’. Each human can basical
98.
by swid 4y ago
I noticed they bought four horses without enough money to do so. (It correctly said two characters would have to borrow 20 gold each, but only 10 gold remained in the party, leaving them 30 short).
99.
by swid 4y ago
It’s an interesting debate to bring up, but I think not really the same kind of prediction without explanation I am talking about. The second post I linked turned out to be really interesting, it both aligns with my thoughts while also addi
100.
by swid 4y ago
> .. we can abstract, and formalise, and prove, and demonstrate. You can't do that just by predicting. That's a power over and beyond modelling data. I think we will find this not to be the case. And of course, many people like
101.
by swid 4y ago
Thanks for the offer, but it feels to me like you are missing the point I would like to be making. Maybe we are all just stochastic parrots in a sense? (FWIW, I do basically understand the notation). I think the universe might be computable
102.
by swid 4y ago
It’s just overly reductive. LLMs do not work like Bayesian or Markov models that fail to scale. In order to predict what word a human will say next past a certain accuracy, you actually have to model more than text. You have to model tha
103.
by swid 4y ago
> Why? Any large probabilistic model in your example would also predict "an" due to the high attention on apple. I’m not ignoring how the tech works and this is a simple example. But that doesn’t preclude emergent behavior bey
104.
by swid 4y ago
I’m sure you don’t think it follows a human is a glorified rock? Both objects are processed by the universe under the same rules, and understanding how consciousness arises directly from physics is likely intractable.
105.
by swid 4y ago
One reason I hate the “glorified word predictor” phrase, is that predicting the next word involves considering what will come well after that. I saw a research paper where they tested a LLM to predict the word “a” vs “an”. In order to do t
106.
by swid 4y ago
Thanks for the correction, guess I did not read that post close enough.
107.
by swid 4y ago
Even if it is free, I have no interest in playing chess against a superhuman chess bot. You don’t even have to know how to play chess to use the moves the bots recommend and win against a grandmaster. The line is blurry today, but we are m
108.
by swid 4y ago
Some posts yesterday showed that network is usually disabled, but with the right prompt, you can enable network and someone got it to like a Twitter post.
109.
by swid 4y ago
The foundation of cryptography is that there exists algorithms in which the only way the beat them is to iterate over a computationally infeasible number of states to be able to decrypt something. To not believe my assumption would require
110.
by swid 4y ago
There is no proof of that for our crypto systems. There is a proof you can’t prove ZF theory, but you also probably can’t prove it false. If you hide that question in the thing you iterate over, you can take it on faith you won’t find a c
111.
by swid 4y ago
Because some problems we lack the ability to solve any other way. There are at least three problems which are famous, as described in the article I linked. see if you follow this one one, for a real computer: Suppose I pick a n bit key, an
112.
by swid 4y ago
Both people are me. I think there is an answer in that article, but I can’t unpack it for you. It explains why what you are asking about is so impractical, and can point you to topics to gain a better understanding. In the real world, a p
113.
by swid 4y ago
You asked if we could solve if it overflows a computer efficiently (without overflowing it), so I am showing that is not possible generally due to limitations of math; both our current understanding but also because math also has limits. (G
114.
by swid 4y ago
Here is a good article you might be able to understand that pretty much provides an answer to your question. https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-busy-beaver-game-illumina...
115.
by swid 4y ago
The busy beaver problem show how many states a program can have given a certain number of Turing instructions. We don’t actually know the value of that number past five I think, but it already shows us brute force is out of the question. C
116.
by swid 4y ago
If there is a fence, I think it is because of quantum decoherence. More and more qbits leads to a possibly exponentially greater chance for decoherence, and the result of the quantum computation is invalid. The program will need to be run
117.
by swid 4y ago
I’m not sure I buy the argument that you can say that we know the halting problem is unsolvable and therefore we can’t calculate BB. The halting problem is unsolvable due to a contradiction, but there is a finite set of programs with given
118.
by swid 4y ago
Definitely this is a very fair criticism to my comment. I don’t fully agree yaml is bad, - I think it depends on use case But I appreciate you bringing up the other side; I agree somewhat that CircleCI is not as easy to use as it could be
119.
by swid 4y ago
All my phrase searches just end up with 404. I wanted to say - I’ve used GPT3 before when a normal thesaurus fails me… I think it’s possible to find a solution with that kind of technology to get more information for the user than a normal
120.
by swid 4y ago
But the only functional constraint is just how it looks when it is serialized. You can write any language’s AST to yaml; it will look like yaml, but the representation at least allows for Turing complete behavior. I do have issues with how

More ›