eigenket

6 ms·

1.
by eigenket 5mo ago
I don't know anything about this specific LLM thing but if it correctly uses the Nash bargaining optimiser then that won't happen. This thing you point out is exactly why Nash demanded invariance under affine transformations in hi
2.
by eigenket 7mo ago
I would say almost exactly the opposite is happening. Academia generally publishes it's results relatively freely but academic AI research is largely being left in the dust by large corporations who do not find it in their interest to
3.
by eigenket 1y ago
Yeah the whole entangled system is present and interacting with the "thermal ancilla" in their setup.
4.
by eigenket 2y ago
This graph [1] available on Wikipedia answers this question. The level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere (in the southern hemisphere) roughly doubled between 1955 and 1963 ish. This coincides with the era of above ground nuclear testing. Since
5.
by eigenket 2y ago
There is not an "OS" or anything even remotely like it. For now these things behave more like physics experiments than computers. You can play around with "quantum programming" through (e.g.) some of IBM's offerings
6.
by eigenket 2y ago
I'm not sure what that has to do with my previous comment but yeah, pushing the boundaries of science is kinda difficult and you can make mistakes. My understanding is that they pretty convincingly showed that the thing they built acts
7.
by eigenket 2y ago
The Majorana particles in Microsoft's set-up are "quasi-particles". They aren't really fundamental particles, but excitations in the system which behave (roughly, in some appropriate sense) like particles. They aren&#x27
8.
by eigenket 2y ago
The point is that Grothendieck, easily one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, who regularly proved deep and fundamental facts about prime numbers, cared so little about particular numbers that he accidentally gave an easy to see no
9.
by eigenket 2y ago
The formal class is called BQP, in analogy with the classical complexity clas BPP. BQP contains BPP but there is no proof that it is stictly bigger (such a proof would imply P != NP). There are problems in BQP we expect are not in BPP but i
10.
by eigenket 2y ago
The I can locally do stuff is completely understood theoretically/mathematically. I hand waved because this isn't a forum where those technicalities are particuarly relevant. Its been well understood since at least 1993 https:&#x
11.
by eigenket 2y ago
I don't think it's completely clear (to me) that quantum networking is an oxymoron. I would enthusiastically agree that its very complicated and the real world use cases are incredibly limited. As far as your routing/switchin
12.
by eigenket 2y ago
Neither of Gödel's two incompleteness theorems apply to quantum mechanics. The two theorems apply to logical systems which prove facts about the natural numbers. While this is an incredibly broad class of things, it doesn't includ
13.
by eigenket 2y ago
Nuclear weapons (based on quantum mechanics and special relativity) were used less than 6 years after that quote.
14.
by eigenket 2y ago
Why doesn't this experimental result count as requiring explanation? We know (for example) silver atoms have mass, and that massive objects exert gravity (which we understand as warping of space-time according to GR). We know that we c
15.
by eigenket 2y ago
I would say that's an overly simplistic view. The only way we ever obtain testable things is by working on things which are not currently testable.
16.
by eigenket 2y ago
von Neumann probably
17.
by eigenket 2y ago
I kinda doubt it. The kind of people who end up nominating people for Nobels or even making the decisions on these aren't really struggling for grant funding.
18.
by eigenket 2y ago
Computer science has the Turing award and mathematics the Fields medal. Neither is exactly equivalent to the Nobel but they're similar levels of prestige. The Nobel prize fields and criteria are a bit random, they're essentially j
19.
by eigenket 2y ago
"Vital" is completely subjective but I'd throw stuff around quantum information into the ring. Maybe you'd consider the loop-hole free Bell tests performed in 2015 and awarded the 2022 Nobel prize to count?
20.
by eigenket 2y ago
He unironically should
21.
by eigenket 2y ago
I think this is (very) inaccurate. It feels more like them trying to jump on a "hot topic" bandwagon (machine learning/AI hype is huge). Physics as a discipline hasn't really stalled at all. Fundamental physics arguably
22.
by eigenket 2y ago
I don't think that's a super helpful description, because probably most people wouldn't call IO a datastructure.
23.
by eigenket 2y ago
There are many protocols for quantum key distribution/exchange so it's hard to answer fully without knowing which one you're talking about. That said their are protocols, like the one invented by Artur Ekert in 1991, which us
24.
by eigenket 2y ago
Its probably mostly because you have an intuitive idea that there is some concept of "now" which is independent of the observer. In special relativity this global "now" isn't a thing. It doesn't exist. There is
25.
by eigenket 2y ago
The issue the person above is alluding to is known as the no communication theorem. It has a wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem But the upshot is basically that entanglement doesn't
26.
by eigenket 2y ago
While the second and third parts if your comment are complete true, the first part > Entanglement isn't particularly useful for communication I would say is false. Entanglement lets you do some fun and theoretically useful stuff for
27.
by eigenket 2y ago
You chose an interesting point to stop replying to these comments!
28.
by eigenket 2y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40656550 This is a comment I made on hackernews, replying to someone who (IIRC) claimed to be German but (in my opinion) was clearly a Russian astroturfing account. After I mentioned it
29.
by eigenket 2y ago
> That's because rational arithmetic is closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Unless you divide by zero I guess
30.
by eigenket 2y ago
Its not remotely the same as the ready box, because the ready box sends its signal before the measurement directions have been chosen. It would be equivalent to the ready box if your filtering happened without any reference to the measureme

More ›