Uzomidy

7 ms·

1.
Show HN: Some ask, "Will chatbots ever be conscious?"; I ask, "Are you?" → Test(reflections.team-us.org)
1 points by Uzomidy 6mo ago|0 comments
2.
On Being Officially Classed as a Robot(pcg-random.org)
2 points by Uzomidy 8mo ago|0 comments
3.
by Uzomidy 8mo ago
The BBC was always pretty establishment, but now they're very afraid of seeming “left wing”, and so we get this…
4.
by Uzomidy 3y ago
That's what you need to do. Most people think streaks are unlikely, which biases people to void even small streaks. The algorithm expects that, so to fool the algorithm initially, you need to tilt towards streaks, and then when begin
5.
by Uzomidy 3y ago
Whee, I did pretty well against it, managed to be at around 30%. https://imgur.com/a/GmaE45k (And no, I didn't write a Perl script, or have multiple goes to game the score, I just “tried not to do what I thought i
6.
by Uzomidy 3y ago
Interesting critique. I'm curious if there's some other nice-and-simple framework you'd recommend?
7.
by Uzomidy 3y ago
The article is a misrepresentation, apparently "believe in a higher power or God" has risen somewhat. This is different from excitement about organized religion , which seems to be less of a thing, not more.
8.
by Uzomidy 6y ago
It's not 100% more — 100% would be twice as much. In this case, we've gone from none at all to having some, which is infinitely more.
9.
by Uzomidy 6y ago
Does this mean that the Y combinator, Y = λf.(λx.f (x x)) (λx.f (x x)), is not a combinator?
10.
by Uzomidy 9y ago
This has nothing to do with cryptographic security or predictability. This is about whether the output of the PRNG passes statistical tests for randomness. In a previous blog post by John D. Cook we saw that it failed the PractRand statist
11.
by Uzomidy 11y ago
It looks like they used an automated tool to add copyright notices to files in the repository. Probably were required to do that by legal. So it's not 100% faithful history, but close.
12.
by Uzomidy 12y ago
The benchmark details are in the paper. It's a pretty ordinary Haswell PC.
13.
by Uzomidy 12y ago
Looking at the PCG paper, it shows that a basic XorShift generator doesn't pass statistical tests as it gets bigger. Basically, there are some tests it never passes no matter how big it gets. But a tiny change (XorShift*) is enough to
14.
by Uzomidy 12y ago
The graphs of failures don't show the PCG scheme because their number of failures is zero. The performance graphs show a whole bunch of PCG generators. You absolutely can predict the Mersenne Twister after 624 outputs (there are severa
15.
by Uzomidy 12y ago
Apparently, both the Mersenne Twister and XorShift (which seem to be two of the popular RNGs people use these days) can't pass all statistical tests. (The Mersenne Twister is pretty huge as well.)
16.
PCG – A Family of Better Random Number Generators(pcg-random.org)
13 points by Uzomidy 12y ago|9 comments