golol

5 ms·

1.
by golol 8d ago
It doesn't really make sense what he said. Everyone expects N-S to have blow-up. If you are going to try to show blow-up, C and D are strictly easier than A and B. So Tristan was not clear about what detail of "route" he is t
2.
by golol 8d ago
I just meant that choosing the same 2 routes out of 4 would not at all be a great coincidence without knowing what Tristan was working on.
3.
by golol 9d ago
>"It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." To be honest, he was referring to routes (c) and (d) to the millenium problem, as far as I understand no more specific. Which is 2
4.
by golol 13d ago
This is oversimplifying it. Read the metr report on the huggingface incident.
5.
PDE and Cellular Automata Simulator(simpde.gololcohan.chatgpt.site)
1 points by golol 21d ago|0 comments
6.
by golol 29d ago
I just had thw thought: aren't parentheses just punctuation denoting an inline footnote?
7.
by golol 3mo ago
Cute, but for strange words clicking the longest explanation turned out to be akmost always rhe correct one :)
8.
by golol 4mo ago
Read the declaration. The article misrepresents it imo. It is not strongly opinionated.
9.
by golol 4mo ago
Yes what I was saying is what I believe about the goalposts.
10.
by golol 4mo ago
I think based on the class of problem that RH is an independence result is not something that "really happens".
11.
by golol 4mo ago
I did not have the impression the proof uses a surprising and novel contribution of fields. I think the proof uses standard application techniques of algebraic number theory towards discrete geometry. If you have a quote substantiating what
12.
by golol 4mo ago
You are believing a very unlikely scenario. I think the reason is that you have been convinced of a claim which is unlikely and indeed not true. That is: >the model seems so capable at doing things like refuting fundamental theorems of m
13.
by golol 4mo ago
You should believe that the proof works at least as much as any ither paper in mathematics. The proof has been scrutinized by experts and simplified and improved. If you don't believe that then I'm sorry but you are deluding yours
14.
by golol 4mo ago
No it is not Leibniz/Euler/Galois. More like writing good papers that contribute to the broader understanding of a theory. I think if one evaluated a mathematicians research output and it consisted of mostly the kinds of problems
15.
by golol 7mo ago
Giving an addict a hit also reduces anxiety.
16.
by golol 10mo ago
Getting 65% of the population to spend 1% of their income on some new digital toy forever does not seem so far fetched.
17.
by golol 10mo ago
I think I should be able to collect whatever publicly available data I can find.
18.
by golol 10mo ago
I am pushing the optimism a bit of course, but currently we can see many demos of robots doing basic tasks, and it seems like it is quite easy nowadays to do this with the data driven approach.
19.
by golol 10mo ago
Say you want to steer an android to walk forward. You need to provide angles or forces or voltages for all the actuators for every moment in time, so that's high dimensional. If you already have certain control models, neural or not, y
20.
by golol 10mo ago
The gap between high level and low level control of robots is closing. Right now thousands of hours of task specific training data is being collected and trained on to create models that can control robots to execute specific tasks in spec
21.
by golol 11mo ago
>Paper claims definition of AGI >Look inside >No definition of AGI.
22.
by golol 11mo ago
This is pretty cool. I have several points to make. 1. We all know that Cellular automata or more generally any dynamical system of sufficient complexity (and maybe not too much complexity) will be Turing complete, will have complicated &qu
23.
by golol 11mo ago
If we could build mechanical horses they wiuld be absolutely amazing!
24.
by golol 1y ago
SpaxeX does clean work.
25.
by golol 1y ago
Well yes, you can "hack" the pseudorandom number generator, but... that's not really the point when talking about determinism in LLMs is it? I mean the mathematical idea of the standard LLM is certainly truly random.
26.
by golol 1y ago
Hold on a second. A transformer produces deterministically a probability distribution over the token alphabet from the context. Then one samples from this distribution. This is random and meant to be random.
27.
by golol 1y ago
I wonder if here is a bug. For me it also always repeats the initial question.
28.
by golol 1y ago
Hey Mr. Buzzard I want to say I find your work and enthusiasm with Lean and formalization very cool.
29.
by golol 1y ago
More middlemen = more revenue/GDP, right?
30.
by golol 1y ago
IMO many misrepresentations. - pretraining to predict the next token imposes no bias against surprise, except that low probabilities are more likely to have a large relative error. - using a temperature lower than 1 does impose a direct bia

More ›