KalMann
Joined 55 karma
- KalMannThis but with hate.
- Why are you phrasing your correction in the form of a question? I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that he mistakenly thought it was a Stanford study because the link was from Stanford.
- > Further, an ad hominem is when a person attacks someone's character without any base.
That is not what an ad hominem is.
- > It does exactly the same, predicts tokens,
That is an absolutely wild claim you've made. You're being way to presumptious.
- > Models don't have access to "reality"
This is an explanation of why models "hallucinate" not a criticism for the provided definition of hallucination.
- I think the problem with your post is that it started a list of "incorrect statements" with a statement that wasn't incorrect.
- You're missing the point. Those kind of narrow AI applications are not the motivation for the trillions of dollars being poured into AI. Of course AI has a variety of applications many disciplines, as it has for decades. The motivation behind the massive investment in AI is as forgetfulness said, reap the benefits from "revolutionizing the workplace"
- Aren't you forgetting about the software that makes it so easy and straightforward for newcomers to flash programs and experiment the microcontroller?
- I'd try a some more if I were you. I saw an example of generated infographic that was greatly improved over anything I've seen an image generator do before. What you desire seems in the realm of possibility.
- He probably meant to say "vector" the second time he said "matrix".
- Expecting every little fact to have an "authoritative source" is just annoying faux intellectualism. You can ask someone why they believe something and listen to their reasoning, decide for yourself if you find it convincing, without invoking such a pretentious phrase. There are conclusions you can think to and reach without an "official citation".
- I think his point is it means a lot in the context of investors seeking to make returns on their investments.
- This seems like a strange comment to make since the above comment in no way suggests that we are currently in an AI winter.
- Well I think you have to ask what the goal of the researchers are. In the case of fluid mechanics they may research new algorithms that make into the software mechanical engineers use, even if they don't understand the algorithms themselves for example. So mechanical engineers still benefit from the research.
So I guess what I'm wondering is if software engineers benefit from the research that software research produce? (even if they don't understand it themselves)
- I don't get why people act like this definition is so circular. If you were to explain in detail what "transforms as a second rank tensor" means then it wouldn't be circular anymore. This just isn't the full definition.
- No, I think what he said was true. Human brains have something about them that allow for the invention of poetry or music. It wasn't something learned through prior experience and observation because there aren't any poems in the wild. You might argue there's something akin to music, but human music goes far beyond anything in nature.
- It doesn't really matter if NaN is technically a number or not. I find the standard "NaN == NaN is true" to be potentially reasonable (though I do prefer the standard "NaN == Nan is false"). Regardless of what you choose NaN/NaN = 1 is entirely unacceptable.
- > That’s also the reason NaN !== NaN. If NaN behaved like a number and had a value equal to itself, well, you could accidentally do math with it: NaN / NaN would result in 1, and that would mean that a calculation containing a NaN result could ultimately result in an incorrect number rather than an easily-spotted “hey, something went wrong in here” NaN flag.
While I'm not really against the concept of NaN not equaling itself, this reasoning makes no sense. Even if the standard was "NaN == NaN evaluates to true" there would be no reason why NaN/Nan should necessarily evaluate to 1.
- I don't think his phrasing implies that.
- > "a computable function that grows faster than BB(N)"
In the context that Scott Aaronson was using it probably yes as that is necessary for the most straightforward /obvious proof to work.