tome

52 ms·

901.
by tome 3y ago
OK, second try, since I was wrong about LeCun. > You can also ask that question about the other side What other side? Who in the "other side" is making a self-serving claim?
902.
by tome 3y ago
Interesting, thanks! I guess I was wrong about him.
903.
by tome 3y ago
> do you agree that guns are not the problem and should not be regulated But AI is not like guns in this analogy. AI is closer to machine tools.
904.
by tome 3y ago
> For what we know our brain could be a process that minimize an unknown loss function. Every process minimizes a loss function.
905.
by tome 3y ago
> You can also ask that question about the other side But the other side is downplaying their accomplishments. For example Yann LeCun is saying "the things I invented aren't going to be as powerful as some people are making
906.
by tome 3y ago
How can one distinguish this testimony from rhetoric by a group who want to big themselves up and make grandiose claims about their accomplishments?
907.
by tome 3y ago
Mu is strict because it was designed to target an existing strict runtime. That's all.
908.
by tome 3y ago
Effect tagging in first order, monomorphic code is easy. Doing it in the higher order and polymorphic case is the tricky bit. Do Nim and D support that?
909.
by tome 3y ago
A few minor corrections > Simon Peyton Jones is reported to have said that lazy evaluation has been kept "to keep us honest about side effects" Rather, one of the main benefits of laziness was to force purity and thereby to ins
910.
by tome 3y ago
It was written to replace an existing functional DSL called "Lambda", and to target Lambda's runtime.
911.
by tome 3y ago
> > Every file starts with declaring thirty language extensions. > This has never been true, all extensions can be declared default global to a compilation group Yup, or nowadays you can just use "GHC2021" and be happy.
912.
by tome 4y ago
> When I see “applied to too many arguments” I know I added an extra one. Does anyone understand the complaint here? It sounds like the error message describes exactly what's wrong!
913.
by tome 4y ago
> If my understanding is correct, it can't "prove" any properties, only disprove them. Almost. If your generators exhaust the input space then the property is proved.
914.
by tome 4y ago
Could you elaborate? I have read Out of the Crisis, and I don't notice a contradiction with Animats's post.
915.
by tome 4y ago
Yup, will definitely accept that one.
916.
by tome 4y ago
If it was just about making it non recursive so it could be inlined then the following would be sufficient: foldr k z = foldr' k z where foldr' k z [] = z foldr' k z (y:ys) = y `k` foldr' k
917.
by tome 4y ago
I suspect we all prefer that, but the point of abstracting out a closure that captures k and z is for performance.
918.
by tome 4y ago
Do you have insight you can share into why you find it that way?
919.
by tome 4y ago
> C lets me actually control the whole machine Really? Can you run micro-ops?
920.
by tome 4y ago
I find the go pattern absurd. Which of these is easier to read: foldr k z = go where go [] = z go (y:ys) = y `k` go ys or foldr k z = foldr_k_z where foldr_k_z [] = z foldr_k_z (y:
921.
by tome 4y ago
Or use gloss and make "something" arguably more easily than in PureScript? https://hackage.haskell.org/package/gloss
922.
by tome 4y ago
Can you give an example of a Haskell way that is not Right?
923.
by tome 4y ago
Yes, it's a bit strange. I would have thought 1. They would already be using everything they can get 2. They would easily be able to explain what they're not using, without giving away sensitive secrets.
924.
by tome 4y ago
Anything you can share about the reason?
925.
by tome 4y ago
Hmm, not sure how the black box works, but maybe it knows that he built a business worth tens of millions and she didn't.
926.
by tome 4y ago
> giving it money to replicate itself Sorry, who is giving AI money to replicate itself!?
927.
by tome 4y ago
What do you mean? Dr Tung's is listed under '“Not Our Favorite” Tooth Floss Brands' and considered to contain PFAS (although there appears to be some dispute in the comments).
928.
by tome 4y ago
I guess in 2017 the technology wasn't there yet . It was just predicted to be coming. Now we have some technology, available right at this moment, that I suppose can be used to automate away jobs, but no one's put the pieces
929.
by tome 4y ago
In 2017 we were going to have "profitable driverless fleets by 2019". Why is it different this time? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15824953
930.
by tome 4y ago
> AI chips away at what it means to be human Can you name a broad technological revolution that didn't?

More ›