sixfiveotwo

5 ms·

1.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
> I think a memory address is a number that CPU considers to be a memory address I meant to say that, indeed, there must be some concept of CPU for a memory address to have a meaning, and for this concept of CPU to be as widely applicabl
2.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
How would you define what a memory address is without first defining in which context it has a meaning?
3.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
I'm sorry if you feel that way. I am in no way trying to judge you; rather, I'm trying to get closer to the truth in that matter, and your input is valuable, as it points out a discrepancy wrt TFA, but it is also subject to cautio
4.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
> Yeah like several hundred "Chess IM/GMs react to ChatGPT playing chess" videos on youtube. If I were to take that sentence literally, I would ask for at least 199 other examples, but I imagine that it was just a figure o
5.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Very strange, I cannot spot any specifically saying that ChatGPT cheated or played an illegal move. Can you help?
6.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
That's simple logic. Quoting you again: > Machines are good at applying rules, so when they fail to apply rules correctly, it means they have incorrect, incomplete, or totally absent models. If this line of reasoning applies to mach
7.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
I think the article briefly touch on that topic at some point: > For one, gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct rarely suggests illegal moves, even in the late game. This requires “understanding” chess. If this doesn’t convince you, I encourage you to
8.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
> Whereas the LLM makes "moves" that clearly indicate no ability to play chess: moving pieces to squares well outside their legal moveset, moving pieces that aren't on the board, etc. Do you have any evidence of that? TFA
9.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
> Machines are good at applying rules, so when they fail to apply rules correctly, it means they have incorrect, incomplete, or totally absent models. That's assuming that, somehow, a LLM is a machine. Why would you think that?
10.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
It's a good point. But this math analogy is not quite appropriate: there's abstract math and arithmetic. A good math practitioner (LLM or human) can be bad at arithmetic, yet good at abstract reasoning. The later doesn't (nec
11.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Quite interesting, thank you. However, in this specific instance, even if the text cannot be changed, couldn't the error itself in the server be processed and signaled differently, eg. by returning a Status Code 413[1], since clients o
12.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
thank you, that looks awesome.
13.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Sorry, I understand it was a bit intrusively direct. To bring some context, I toyed a little with neural networks a few years ago and wondered myself about this topic of training a so called quantized network (I wanted to write a small mult
14.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
> I spend much longer trying to figure out how to get 1-trit training to work and I never could. What did you try? What were the research directions at the time?
15.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Indeed, you can get a lot more from dependent types than Damas-Hindley-Milner inference, yet does it mean that you should use the former everywhere?
16.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Yes indeed, I realized that it was way more complicated than what I initially imagined. When I first read the article, the sequence of subgroups that were described evoked that image of a combination lock to me: < UR > < U, R >
17.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Clearly that first intuition doesn't work. The Hamiltonian cycle for decimal numbers is perhaps an equivalent of grey code? And if it exists, is there a connection with the Rubik's cube cycle?
18.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
My intuition when reading the first lines of this article was that, just like when searching exhaustively for the correct combination on a padlock, one would cycle through each subgroup, where each of them would represent a digit on the loc
19.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Perhaps the problem could be different. Wouldn't the energy gathered from renewable sources otherwise be used by nature? At which point will the amount we capture be large enough to impact sognificantly the ecosystem?
20.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
> This is a very good example of how you can cause real world harm with by trying to game the system for yourself. Isn't that the rule that Uber itself already imposes on its customers and drivers?
21.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Well, maybe...
22.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
If you have a look at the underlying network traffic, you'll see IP packets carrying TCP data, ie. The protocol field in the IP packet header will be set to TCP; this could be assimilated to a TCP packet.
23.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will try to remember that Let me coin a new term to help me in that task: the "swarm gallop", which would be that technique applied by a group of people, instead of just one person (s
24.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
They just hate being manipulated.
25.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Right, they also tend to use special tools to crunch their binaries down to acceptable size, afaik. That said, that's a very good point. Maybe they'd even use that fmt library?
26.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
That quote does not imply anything about C macro being better in any way, but I am nevertheless delighted that you could prove me wrong somehow. Thank you for this!
27.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
You'll have to quote me, I don't see where I am implying that. But anyway, the point that I am refuting is the use of C++ to write programs for such an extremely constrained runtime environnement, and at the same time refuse to us
28.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
This is not my claim.
29.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Template specialization means more generated code, which, again, must fit in 2kb. On very old archs (16bits, 8bits), there was no OO, because the code could not be complex enough to warrant it. It could not be complex because there wasn&#x2
30.
by sixfiveotwo 2y ago
Sure, but 2kb code space? What sort of class hierarchy can you possibly use in so little space?

More ›