lamerose

6 ms·

1.
by lamerose 3y ago
Those are inputs, ground truth, and outputs from various methods, not training data. Not sure what their training data is though lol.
2.
by lamerose 3y ago
Where do they show that?
3.
by lamerose 3y ago
Focus, hike, relax, focus, hike, relax, focus, hike...
4.
by lamerose 3y ago
>fMRI-to-image Not so impressive compared to EEG.
5.
by lamerose 3y ago
This is from a paper published back in September btw: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.14030.pdf
6.
by lamerose 3y ago
Subvocal speech recognition has been going just as long.
7.
by lamerose 3y ago
Seems like it could just be getting at some phonetic encoding, or even raw audio information. The grammatical and vocab transformations could be accounted for by an imperfect decoder.
8.
by lamerose 3y ago
Elm can do iterative recursion, which is a thinly disguised loop without side effects.
9.
by lamerose 3y ago
Lol. IMO the difference between an C and Assembly (as between vacuum tubes and the abacus) is really a difference in power, since it allows the same program to be implemented on different architechtures. It's only fair to start calling
10.
by lamerose 3y ago
For a better reading experience, try the pdf: https://journalofillusion.net/index.php/joi/article/view/983...
11.
by lamerose 3y ago
The article is presenting a Scheme interpreter running in Scheme, compiled to WASM, not a Scheme compiler, but your idea is also cool. The WASM API apparently doesn't need a pre-made file as its input: you can pass raw bytes generated
12.
by lamerose 3y ago
I admit a scenario in which you have to communicate everything that the abstract communicates is kinda contrieved, though it could happen if the article is the main target of your discussion. But in general, pointless paraphrase of other so
13.
by lamerose 3y ago
Nah, this has more symbolic NLP vibes. LLMs mess up in subtler, more uncanny ways.
14.
by lamerose 3y ago
I think this can result from cases where paraphrase isn't useful but still culturally expected. For example, you often need to introduce the central point of another paper before you can comment on it, and the ideal way to do that woul
15.
by lamerose 3y ago
Not a fan of Python, but it isn't too bad pedagogically speaking. JS on the other hand... I hope WASM can one day kill it, leave it obsolete, and have it forcefully deprecated like Flash.
16.
by lamerose 3y ago
Preferable to doing the Javascript edition of SICP.
17.
by lamerose 3y ago
>I think there are almost literally no software systems today that don't have bugs in them. Programs that have been formally verified with something like Coq can be bug free. Automating formal verification may be a more effective wa
18.
by lamerose 3y ago
Yes, alignment is difficult in itself, but why would aligning a more advanced AI be any harder than what has already been done for current AI?
19.
by lamerose 3y ago
The article makes this sound a bit like a lamer, English version of the Antikythera mechanism. In reality it's just a quadrant, i.e., a portable sundial relying on gravity for alignment, and it's only a decade older than the next
20.
by lamerose 3y ago
Ok, those are some good points about what can go wrong. I still doubt that things are particularly more prone to going wrong in more intelligent systems. Wasn't it early, simplistic systems like Tay that went the furthest off the rails
21.
by lamerose 3y ago
Is your point that a more intelligent AI would develop a more entangled measure of what is good, requiring more specific alignment to be overcome; by way of analogy, are chefs harder to instruct precisely because of their prior expertise? I
22.
by lamerose 3y ago
Is it fair to say that alignment is just the task of getting an AI to understand your intentions? It is an error to confuse the complexity of a specification of what kind of output you want, with the complexity of the process of producing t