- seeknotfind parentYeah, from the title, it sounds like perhaps the entire operation is differentiable and therefore trainable as a whole model and that such training is done. However, upon close inspection, I can't find any evidence that more is done than calling the model repeatedly.
- Yeah, it sounds platonic the way it's written, but it seems more like a hyped model compression technique.
- I suspect that once quantum computers actually scale up so that you can play with them, we'll find all sorts of interesting things to do with them.
However, even now, you can imagine that if quantum computers were small enough, it would be worth it to have it just for the asymptotically fast prime generation with Shor's algorithm. I don't think that's that far fetched. Of course, people wouldn't necessarily need to know they have a quantum computer, but they don't necessarily know the workings of their computers today anyway.
- The last digit of pi doesn't exist since it's irrational. Chaitan's constant, later busy beaver numbers, or any number of functions may be uncomputable, but since they are uncomputable, I'd be assuming that their realizations don't exist. Sure, we can talk about the concept, and they have a meaning in the formal system, but that's precisely what I'm saying: they don't exist in this world. They only exist as an idea.
Say for instance that you could arrange quarks in some way, and out pops, from the fabric of the universe, a way to find the next busy beaver numbers. Well, we'd be really feeling sorry then, not least because "computable" would turn out to be a misnomer in the formalism, and we'd have to call this clever party trick "mega"-computable. We'd have discovered something that exists beyond turing machines, we'd have discovered, say, a "Turing Oracle". Then, we'd be able to "mega"-compute these constants. Another reason we'd really feel sorry is because it would break all our crypto.
However, that's different than the "idea of Chaitan's constant" existing. That is, the idea exists, but we can't compute the actual constant itself, we only have a metaphor for it.
- Do you mean like ghosts or like quantum randomness and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
We cannot compute exactly what happens because we don't know what it is, and there's randomness. Superdeterminism is a common cop out to this. However, when I am talking about whether something is computable, I mean whether that interaction produces a result that is more complicated than a turing complete computer can produce. If it's random, it can't be predicted. So perhaps a more precise statement would be, my default assumption is that "similar" enough realities or sequences of events can be computed, given access to randomness, where "similar" is defined by an ability to distinguish this similulation from reality by any means.
- As the simplest theory, my default position is the universe is computable and that everything in the universe is computable. Note that they are not the same thing.
Some intuition:
1. If the universe contains an uncomputable thing, then you could utilize this to build a super turing complete computer. This would only make CS more interesting.
2. If the universe extends beyond the observable universe, and it's infinite, and on some level it exists, and there is some way that we know it all moves forward (not necessarily time, as it's uneven), but that's an infinite amount of information, which can never be stepped forward at once (so it's not computable). The paper itself touches on this, requiring time not to break down. Though it may be the case, the universe does not "step" infinitely much information.
One quick side, this paper uses a proof with model theory. I stumbled upon this subfield of mathematics a few weeks ago, and I deeply regret not learning about it during my time studying formal systems/type theory. If you're interested in CS or math, make sure you know the compactness theorem.
Paper direct:
https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488.html
I enjoyed some commentary here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/1om3u47/pub...
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...
- I'm looking forward to seeing everyone coming up together, creating better fonts for free, and wiping out any of those profits. Is Monotype trying to destroy their own industry, or do they really think this will work?
- How many times does the rate need to be increased 10x before it's a problem?
- Yeah, people tend to add rather than improve. It's possible to add into lower levels without breaking things, but it's hard. Growing up as a programmer, I was taught UNUX philosophy as a golden rule, but there are sharp corners on this one:
To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new "features".
- "It’s not likely to be something you’ll ever have at home" Pessimistic much?
- Thousand of hours on this. Love it.
- It's nice that there is only a few weird behaviors produced. Often use-after-free leads to so many different random bugs, you might gorble a hubalu.
- "Xia" would map to a single character (code point) in Chinese. For instance, in simplified Chinese, it could be 下 (xia, meaning down), 侠 (martial arts - like the xia in wuxia), or any number of other homophones. Since the characters are already combinatorial, I'm not sure a Chinese speaker would think of this as a portmanteau.
- If you've seen Steve Martin's The Jerk, you'd know he becomes a real jerk in the modern sense during the movie.
- I didn't see the con explicitly in the comments. When someone adds a file, they'll have trouble figuring it out why it's not visible in git, or they may not realize an important file is missing if they are adding multiple.
- Platonism - not even once. Green is the smell of my grandmother's lawn on a hot summer day. Just because things are similar to a lot of people doesn't mean their fundamentally the same.
- Imagine:
- "this chisel was used to carve profanity"
- "this pen and paper was used to write statements against the king"
- "this scrivener was hired to write blasphemous pamphlets"
- "this printing press was used to create literature promoting the enemy"
- "notepad was used to create disturbing content"
These types of constructions are all in passive voice too. I can hear my English teacher saying "[by ???]"!!!
- Innovators Dilemma, mentioned here, is great. If you enjoyed this article, don't overlook that recommendation.
- Long live regex!
- Occasionally I put on multiple programs. Movies in one room, an audio book in another, music in another, etc. Your mind drifts to what is interesting. Lights strobing. Working on 5 different home projects in parallel. It's a vibe.
- > So I said, imagine you had 10,000,000sub10 grains of sand. Then you could … well, uh … you could fill about 10,000,000sub10 copies of the observable universe with that sand.
I don't get this part. Is it really rounding away the volume of the observable universe divided by the average volume of a grain of sand? That is many more orders of magnitude than the amount of mass in the universe, which is a more usual comparison.
- I wonder what other predictions from 2009 James Cameron's Avatar will come true.
- The brain (GI) is multimodal..
- > The True Believers hypothesis rings false because that would be a frankly ridiculous belief to hold. Sometimes people profess ridiculous things, but very few of them put their money where their mouth is on prediction markets.
It sounds like the author is saying the belief is ridiculous in general. However, if Jesus returns, then the believers would ascend to heaven. So, they would not be able to cash out.
What if polymarket put in the money to drive people to vote on the no side? It could be quite a marketing stunt.
- As someone who has never studied distributed computing seriously, yet a systems guy, three or four articles deep here: I feel like I've had my eyes open to a new corner of computing and therein the answers to my problems.
- This is anticipated from work on constrained output from LLMs, and it's good to see it being developed. One nitpick though, this paper mentions the complexities of implementing type checking for program prefixes in languages that are not context free. It's true this is extremely difficult for languages which are context sensitive, especially because types may be defined after they are used. However, it does not mention that it is impossible to implement such a program for Turing complete languages such as C++. I would never miss such an opportunity to criticize C++ and highlight the need for better language design. I love you C++.
- Nothing is demonstrably secure, only not demonstrably insecure. This is - hey our builds come with a bunch of resources you can use to try to prove they're insecure, but you probably can't - but it's an advertisement.
- All you need titles stopping is all you need.
- Trust nothing.
- Oh man, my guys may be able to be replaced if you have enough time, but I'm fucking terrified they would leave. It would set us back 6mo or a year at least. The stack is too complicated, and yes, there is a lot of pressure to pick the right projects, not waste time.