woopsn

5 ms·

1.
by woopsn 5d ago
My interpretation is they don't care about scooping mathematicians they were just trying to scoop a competitor. They had a short window in which to complicate Anthropic's priority, when Anthropic announced be able to say "ok
2.
by woopsn 8d ago
I guess by their own account they were doing competitive analysis on the product and incidentally solved NS. Probably the two companies should agree to benchmark on random diophantine systems, which are harder and more applicable anyway. It
3.
by woopsn 1mo ago
Big leaps in insight I don't think are received as elegant, generally. Fourier's contemporaries actually thought he was wrong (which he was), about both the series and heat equations, and even with the whole thing worked out it&#x
4.
by woopsn 1mo ago
> I could never imagine an LLM in its current form inventing something as elegant as the Fourier transform. This is the crux imo. It doesn't really matter what absolute capability AI has at the moment, but whether we are on track wi
5.
by woopsn 1mo ago
A proof may be impossible to fully grok, since about Leibniz - but problems will be solved now without even understanding the problem statement.
6.
by woopsn 2mo ago
I don't disagree yet it's also clear "hard science fiction" is meaningless if it's just, the people in this universe wear clothing, make campfires etc.
7.
by woopsn 2mo ago
I have great respect for her but this isn't the only essay she's jarringly defensive (imo) in response to a critic. Ok sure, a sock is "technology"...
8.
by woopsn 2mo ago
CoT evidently helps but a bias towards both correctness and innovation has to come from somewhere. The article implies OpenAI's proofs may be supported by Lean but regardless, who knows how many people are trying to disprove the next c
9.
by woopsn 2mo ago
Hey cool project! I built a solar system visualizer some years ago but just using the ephemerides data, no physics. This is ambitious. Noting your age I would say, invest some time in the basics - Euler, Improved Euler, finite differences,
10.
by woopsn 2mo ago
A key thing about the undecidability problem wrt physics is preparation of the initial state. In math and computer science it is relatively straightforward to prepare such problems now (though this represented an enormous leap conceptually)
11.
by woopsn 2mo ago
The infinite lattice doesn't represent a "real" physical processes, it's just mathematical technique for closing a (fundamentally) quantized combinatorial sum over millions of interacting elements. The gap problem exists
12.
by woopsn 4mo ago
I hate ads but they're intrinsic to media culture, fact you need 10 minutes of video media to wake up, go to the bathroom, at work, to decide dinner with your spouse, and then immediately when you get home etc. I'm not judging but
13.
by woopsn 4mo ago
Interesting quotes from the discovery emails. - https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5jjk4CDnj9tA7ugxr/openai-ema... "At some point we’d get someone to run the team, but he/she probably shouldn’t be on the go
14.
by woopsn 5mo ago
It's a kind of superposition representation a la Kolmogorov-Arnold, a learnable functional basis for elementary functions g(x,y)=f(x) - f^{-1}(y) in this sense with f=exp.
15.
by woopsn 6mo ago
It's largely out of Meta's hands now anyway. The risk here not so much to privacy (it's Apple) but they'll walled garden the model space somehow for sure.
16.
by woopsn 6mo ago
Relatively grandiose post sweeps in all kinds of claims about the universe to merely warn a big corporation can copy your idea easily.
17.
by woopsn 6mo ago
As of now the site is in-fact a C&C/botnet. Cloudflare naturally fixates on such risks, not speech (generally). The basic purpose of 1.1.1.2 is to not wind up part of botnet.
18.
by woopsn 6mo ago
In the technophile's future people aren't just getting dumber, not wanting to think or forgetting how - they aren't allowed to think. Maybe about anything. It's too big liability, costs too much to support, moreover de
19.
by woopsn 6mo ago
There's a paragraph on discovery that multinomial distributions are normal in the limit. The turn from there to CLT is not great, but that's a standard way to introduce normal distributions and explains a myriad of statistics.
20.
by woopsn 7mo ago
A provocative aside in bad faith, anyway a completely minor point within the overall post, which some of the people he's telling to fuck off might have read
21.
by woopsn 7mo ago
Good post. I guess the transistor has been in play for not even one century, and in any case singularities are everywhere, so who cares? The topic is grandiose and fun to speculate about, but many of the real issues relate to banal media cu
22.
by woopsn 8mo ago
Why anything except universal algebra? I mean, granted, I myself dove right into topos theory...
23.
by woopsn 9mo ago
Will or should? It's plausible, this same argument was made in an article the other day, but basic type/static analysis tools are cheap with enormous payoff and even those methods aren't ubiquitous.
24.
by woopsn 9mo ago
It's a little arbitrary. Look at the graph on page 6, there's no steep gap in the spectrum there. 16 just about the balance point
25.
by woopsn 10mo ago
Well that's stupid. I submit though, connecting stochastic process directly to shell you do give permission for everything that results. It's a stupid game. Gemini mixes up LEFT and RIGHT (!). You have to check it.
26.
by woopsn 10mo ago
I would submit once you obtain a certain level of experience it becomes IDEAL to begin with implementation, in case a mathematical analysis may be either trivial or impossibly non-trivial... Of course if you're dealing in exchange rate
27.
by woopsn 11mo ago
They ask a yes/no question and inject data into the state. It goes yes (20%). The prompt does not reveal the concept as of yet, of course. The injected activations, in addition to the prompt, steer the rest of the response. SOMETIMES i
28.
by woopsn 11mo ago
The output distribution is altered - it starts responding "yes" 20% of the time - and then, conditional on that is more or less steered by the "concept" vector?
29.
by woopsn 11mo ago
Either life really is extremely rare (most likely), or intelligent life is, or it isn't actually trivial/correct to destroy alien planets. If the galaxy were actually like that we would have been toast a long time ago. In reality
30.
by woopsn 11mo ago
It's worth reading Doron Zeilberger's many opinions about proof/rigor and other things. https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/OPINIONS.html

More ›