solveit

4 ms·

1.
by solveit 10mo ago
The bright side is that it should eventually be technically feasible to create much more powerful and effective guardrails around neural nets. At the end of the day, we have full access to the machine running the code, whereas we can't
2.
by solveit 10mo ago
I get the feeling that you're winging the specific numbers because they're spectacularly incoherent. But anyway, the United States is extremely rich and has essentially no big problems that can be solved by a small amount (say, a
3.
by solveit 10mo ago
Even the US median household income is "only" $83k. Looking at stuff like this + the rest of the blog I'm not convinced the author is any less out of touch than the people this post is criticizing.
4.
by solveit 1y ago
There's nothing wrong with being in debt per se, and in particular, (federal) student loans and mortgages are loans rigged in favor of the borrower.
5.
by solveit 1y ago
Do you recall which paper it was? I would be interested in reading it.
6.
by solveit 1y ago
It's frustrating how far you can go out of your way to avoid being associated with such superficially similar tropes and still fail miserably. Yudkowsky in particular hated that he couldn't get a discussion without being typecas
7.
by solveit 2y ago
> I'd argue that the biggest reason machines are black boxes are because no one is bothering to look inside of them. People do look, but it's extremely hard. Take a look at how hard the mechanistic interpretability people have
8.
by solveit 2y ago
Error correction is possible even if the error correction is itself noisy. The error does not need to accumulate, it can be made as small as you like at the cost of some efficiency. This is not a new problem, the relevant theorems are incre
9.
by solveit 2y ago
The previous poster was actually inviting you to expound on the other reasons.
10.
by solveit 2y ago
> Math fans tend to discount and dismiss applied statistics as being not math, in a way that they don't do for physics, for some reason I don't fully grasp. It's because we're secretly afraid that the physicists are s
11.
by solveit 2y ago
Might be the other ingredients reducing inflammation, widening your clogged pipes and letting stuff drain.
12.
by solveit 2y ago
I think mathematicians looking at that expression would curl their lips in mild disgust, but also evaluate it to True.
13.
by solveit 2y ago
Depends how the flow goes. It's reasonable to only check the diagonal when one player has actually played on the diagonal, in which case this is fine.
14.
by solveit 2y ago
I like good handwriting, but good, fast handwriting takes thousands of hours of practice. We used to spend a good chunk of school drilling it into kids, but now it's really hard to justify everyone spend that kind of time when we can
15.
by solveit 2y ago
We really have no way to know this. But I would be very surprised if modern chess engines didn't regularly blunder into losing (from the perspective of a hypothetical 32-piece tablebase) positions, and very very surprised if modern che
16.
by solveit 2y ago
Practicality of reproducing training runs that cost tens of millions aside, it's hopeless. Determinism is hard enough with a single GPU, fixing a seed isn't going to be much help when training is distributed across hundreds of GPU
17.
by solveit 2y ago
It's relatively trivial to get an LLM that does that and every big lab has one, even if they're not selling them. ChatGPT 4o as of right now just runs python code, which I guess is "Let me get my calculator", see https:
18.
by solveit 2y ago
Or you're using a log scale because your effects span many orders of magnitude, or whatever. The specifics are not particularly central to my point beyond that it isn't too hard to wrangle up some scenario where the equation say
19.
by solveit 2y ago
If at the end of the day you have to compare wildly different things, you have to compare wildly different things. Usually this will involve making a judgment call about how to weigh these things, or in other words, selecting units for the
20.
by solveit 2y ago
Only if they are measured on a scale allowing negative values for outcomes and sufficiently high values for service. It would be unsurprising to have outcomes measured from zero and service topping out at 100%. The equation doesn't say
21.
by solveit 2y ago
I'm not quite sure how exactly to interpret your question, but untreated type 1 diabetes usually kills you within five years of diagnosis.
22.
by solveit 2y ago
> It's not perfect, but the friction helps prevent drive-by bad behaviour. > No it doesn't. There's really no use in continuing this discussion when one party is unable/unwilling to use precise language to discuss
23.
by solveit 2y ago
Most projects with an active user-created mods community are heavily influenced by them.
24.
by solveit 2y ago
Stack the vectors up so it's a matrix and take the determinant. The sign tells you which one it is.
25.
by solveit 2y ago
Rest in peace.
26.
by solveit 2y ago
> Pedantically, it's that the bumps grow exponentially narrower. Has to be smaller in both directions, right? It has to be vertically smaller to allow f to be computable, but horizontally smaller to keep f' large. > IIUC, a
27.
by solveit 2y ago
> how is it possible that there can be a continuous computable function whose derivative is uncomputable? For others: The original paper is short and very readable - https://projecteuclid.org/journalArticle/Download?
28.
by solveit 2y ago
If safety is cheap but overcoming culture is expensive, at some point it becomes misleading (wrt ethics of participants, not correct course of action) to say the problem is that management doesn't care enough to spend money on safety,
29.
by solveit 2y ago
Sorry to hear that. Thanks for sharing.
30.
by solveit 2y ago
What went wrong?

More ›