zmgsabst

31 ms·

631.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Only if there isn’t systemic compromise via funding allocation, eg, what happened with Alzheimers research.
632.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Only if there isn’t a systemic fault, eg bad prompting. Their errors appear to disappear when you correctly set the context from conversational to adversarial testing — and Apple is actually testing the social context and not its ability to
633.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Out of curiosity, what is it you imagine would go wrong?
634.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
You’re moving in the time direction — and when spacetime is curved, you end up moving in the space direction as well, to follow the geodesic.
635.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
We can talk about how a region moves in relation to other regions. I’m still not following your objection based on relativity: We have one frame where I’m on Earth; we have another where I’m in a rocket traveling away at a fixed velocity. I
636.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Literally the same: A type is a theorem and its implementation a proof, if you believe that Curry-Howard stuff. We “prove” (implement) advanced “theorems” (types) using already “proven” (implemented) bodies of work rather than return to “ax
637.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Genuinely curious since I’d only heard of the “51% attack” — what happens around 20%?
638.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
But if the spacetime is moving, there’s local curvature. As in the two examples I gave. So I’m not following. Perhaps you could explain how either of those operates without being able to identify chunks of spacetime as moving.
639.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Your example fails at Galilean relativity: the water you claim is static from your frame on an anchored boat is moving from my frame on an airplane above it — and so isn’t a counter example. We don’t need Lorentz invariance at all. (Though,
640.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
There’s some really negligent stuff, like changing how to disable auto pilot (ie, MCAS) — as the pilots of both crashed planes attempted actions that would have disabled the autopilot on previous models.
641.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Tell that to the courts, I guess. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/business/media/hunter-bid... Excerpt: > The laptop and some of its contents played a visible role in federal prosecutors’ case
642.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
There’s waves in it (gravitational waves) and objects could be made from it (blackholes). That sounds like “stuff” is there. > Stuff/substances is where you can talk about a chunk of it, and say where it is at some later time. In wh
643.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Yes — we have a unified approach that describes light as just an aspect of the aether, which is why I used that specific term. But much of that wasn’t known at the time the original aether theory was posited. Both MM and LIGO were looking
644.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
No. Media has always been salacious nonsense — at least, judging from the 1880s English newspapers I’ve read as part of a research writing class: they’re full of complete lies about Jack the Ripper, for instance. Most of the discussion from
645.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
> The solution for both was posited to be a physical medium permeating space that had certain special properties, Light is an excitation of the EM aether — or if you prefer, “field”. (Which you then explain later, yourself.) We failed to
646.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Well, because they’re aethers - pervasive “stuff” which is the substance of the traveling wave, eg those detected by LIGO. Wilczek for instance points out that modern theories are aether theories.
647.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
That’s not the statistical definition of “evidence” — which is an occurrence that makes something more (or less) likely. I’d argue that each failure in a strictly statistical sense makes it more likely the whole conception is flawed — if on
648.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
They’re not unrelated: they’re the same experiment, looking for an aether — because spacetime is an aether theory. When the original aether theory failed, they pointed out that you squish when moving in the aether, and so they detected aeth
649.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Michelson-Morley worked; we call it LIGO. The period after the apparent failure to the present success has been incredibly fruitful.
650.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
How many places do I need to look before I start to have evidence my lost wallet isn’t in my house? The normal spot on the shelf? …checking my pockets? …searching the bags I used to go shopping? At each step, another of my theories about wh
651.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Yeah — my point was Amazon is very large and standards vary. I won’t pretend I know the whole picture, but I’ve seen retaliation against SDEs multiple times. I’ve heard mixed things about CDO, positive things about AWS, but where I worked i
652.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
PAM debacle (17Q4) in Device Econ is a counter example. And that wasn’t even a mistake the SDEs made — they were punished for the economists being reckless and subsequently bullied out of the company, despite the SDEs trying to raise the al
653.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
> last I heard the ATF was tracking those down as an NFA violation. I was responding to this portion of the comment, where they referred to the ATF and NFA - a federal agency and law. I was updating them that was no longer true as of a f
654.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
I’m not sure of the utility: Asking the LLM to do “reasoning” as a single intuitive step is fundamentally not assessing its potential to reason — and is unlike what we expect from humans where we insist they “show their work”. (As a math gr
655.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
The bump stock ban was struck down as exceeding statutory authority [*] in June. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow... [*] - edited reason after rereading; this wasn’t 2nd amendment, but
656.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
I wrote up a preliminary whitepaper, but haven’t done a statistically sound test yet. I’ll freely admit this is just a competing theory when I’ve only tried a dozenish hand-written examples rather than hundreds by script. http://
657.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Apple’s paper isn’t testing LLM reasoning. It’s testing the LLM’s social awareness — and their proclivity to assume good faith but errors in the input, rather than comprehend the adversarial nature of math tests. My own testing indicates th
658.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
That requires your debt to: a) be worth fighting for in court; and, b) be of a nature the news won’t murder the company over the lawsuit.
659.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Fidelity did that to me last week, after I’d closed my account with them two weeks prior. I had to call them (!) since they didn’t even include an unsubscribe option as I was a customer (!!) and have the CSR delete my email address from the
660.
by zmgsabst 2y ago
Apple is higher up the descent than Boeing — but I’d argue that their lackluster iPhone 16 is precisely that they’re on the same slope.

More ›