ActivePattern

6 ms·

61.
by ActivePattern 3y ago
I suspect the model is fundamentally the same underneath, but that various tricks like quantization are being performed in the deployed model to improve inference speed/cost at the expense of output quality.
62.
by ActivePattern 3y ago
Then simply train the model to predict whether a human can interpret it as a unicorn.
63.
by ActivePattern 3y ago
I would imagine that all new ideas in chess (particularly openings) come from analyzing positions deeply with the computer. It is an indespensible tool at the highest levels.
64.
by ActivePattern 3y ago
The computer often plays moves that go against our human-crafted chess "principles", but that happen to work for reasons that only make sense if you can calculate 40 moves into the future.
65.
by ActivePattern 3y ago
Yeah, that's closer to the definition I'm familiar with. It's a species of "correlation does not imply causation". What the author is talking about here seems to be how to recognize and avoid confirmation bias.
66.
by ActivePattern 3y ago
No, your expected value is indeed positive over repeated iterations: (1.05^i)*w, where i is the number of iterations and w is the starting wealth. The intuition for why this happens is that the losses of the majority are made up by the big
67.
by ActivePattern 3y ago
As a Canadian, it does feel like stepping out of a time machine when you pay at restaurants in the USA. Instead of using a terminal at the table to pay yourself, you need to give the server your card and wait for them to manually process it
68.
by ActivePattern 3y ago
Right, and that's a legit argument against Technical Analysis. The meteor argument makes no sense, for the reason above.