staticassertion

6 ms·

241.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
I don't need to do that unless you think that neurons interact exactly the way that LLMs do? That said, we have detailed, microscopic models of neurons, the ability to even simulate brain activity, intervention studies where we can mak
242.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
> The “good deal of evidence” is everywhere. The proof is in the pudding. I'm open! Please, by all means. > the blog article (not an actual paper?) rightfully derides benchmarks and then…creates a benchmark? The blog article is
243.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
I think "novel" is ill defined here, perhaps. LLMs do appear to be poor general reasoners[0], and it's unclear if they'll improve here. It would be unintuitive for them to be good at this, given that we know exactly how
244.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
Doesn't ripgrep support indexing too?
245.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
Nice, thanks! Yeah, so exfil is definitely still a thing to watch out for, even if you run in an unprivileged env.
246.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
Yeah idk what you're going on about lol
247.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
> We both know that you are not getting that published in a reputable journal without a lot of effort beyond merely 'publishing the language I created'. But sure, you can get something on arxiv. lol what? There are papers on pr
248.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
> What do we have that apes don't, and which directly enables intelligence? Again, there are multiple fields of study with tons of amazingly detailed answers to this. We know about specific proteins, specific brain structures, we
249.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
> "More success" is a bit vague in this instance but building a compiler that would take a single programmer 1 to 3 months is not comparable to this result regardless of whatever similarity exists in time completion estimates.
250.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
But... we're talking about our intelligence. So obviously it's quite relevant. I didn't say that AI isn't intelligent, I said that we have good reason to believe that our intelligence is unique. And we do, a lot of goo
251.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
You're just defining intelligence as "undefined", which okay, now anything is anything. What is the point of that? Indeed, there's quite a lot of work that's been done on what these terms mean. The fields of neuro
252.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
I don't get what either of your points is intended to demonstrate. Let's revisit the first post I replied to: > It's deeply surprising to me that LLMs have had more success proving higher math theorems than making successf
253.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
Writing a complex parser or certainly a compiler is a 1 - 3 month project, for example. Again, I'm not trying to downplay this, but to frame this accurately. I think an AI being able to build a parser/ compiler is cool too. > O
254.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
> I had previously wondered if the AI’s approach might be possible, but it seemed hard to work out. They didn't solve it, that's fair. They did consider the approach already.
255.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
I actually still don't see the source for them trying several times, but we can take that for granted. Regardless, as I said: 1. It's labeled as "moderately interesting" 2. They said that they expect an expert could solv
256.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
That's interesting context, where do you see that? I'm going off of the label "Moderately interesting". edit: I see in the full write up that the contributor says that they'd estimate an expert would take 1-3 months
257.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
Is this novel? It's new. But we already know AI can generate new things, any statistical reassembly of any content will generate new things. It's not to downplay this, but it's unclear what "novel" means here or wha
258.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
They haven't, not at all as far as I can tell. This math problem appears to be a nice chore to be solved, the equivalent to "Claude, optimize this code" or "Write a parser", which is being done 100000x a day.
259.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
> So no. LLMs are not brute force dummies. We are seeing increasingly emergent behavior in frontier models. Woah! That was a leap. "We are seeing ... emergent behaviors" does not follow from "it's not brute force&quo
260.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
It doesn't. I actually completely reject that theory, and it's nice to see that Wikipedia notes that it is "controversial". There are extremely good reasons to reject this theory. For one thing, any quantum effects are g
261.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
> I don't know why I am still perpetually shocked that the default assumption is that humans are somehow unique. Because, empirically, we have numerous unique and differentiable qualities, obviously. Plenty of time goes into under
262.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
I really wouldn't worry much. Over the last decade of rust, very few of the articles exploring new syntax have turned into anything controversial by the time they were merged (I can't even think of big rust syntax changes other th
263.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
Nice, yeah I think they should start to migrate to that behavior by default.
264.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
No one has ever said that supply chain attacks are limited to npm.
265.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
I assume this is because it is modeled after git tags, and at this point it would be a major change to move away from this. But it should probably get started at some point.
266.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
Their question isn't about pinned versions, it's about immutable versions. The question is why it is possible to change what commit "v5" refers to, not "why would you want to write v5". You already don't g
267.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
You only need internet access to grab the image, I don't think trivy requires internet access itself. All of my image scanning tools run in isolation.
268.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
Yeah, we got a signed letter of engagement from our auditor, which was enough to unlock a customer without having to go through any sidestepping process.
269.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
> You can get a long, long way without SOC2; Yes, that's true. I edited my post to be a bit clearer about this. When you need a SOC2 is going to depend a lot on your business. Lots of companies can make exceptions very easily. Type
270.
by staticassertion 6mo ago
It's complicated. In theory, SOC2 forces you to do some important stuff, like define your threat model and say "I can mitigate against the threats and prove that my mitigations are in place". The problem is always that the co

More ›