Not a physicist, but I see it this way too. My understanding of Boltzmann brains is that they are a theoretical consequence of infinite time and space in a universe with random quantum fluctuations. And that those random fluctuations would still be present in an otherwise empty universe. So then this article has no bearing on the Boltzmann brain thought experiment or its ramifications.
If they had experimented using a newer model (gemma 3, deepseek-1 7b, etc.) and reported better results, would that be because their newer baseline model was better than the llama 2 model used in the previous methods' experiments? A more comprehensive study would include results for as many baseline models as possible. But there are likely other researchers in the lab all waiting to use those expensive GPUs for their experiments as well.
It’s the fundamentals that underly Stable Diffusion, Dalle, and various other SOTA image generation models, video, and audio generation models. They’ve also started taking off in the field of robotics control [1]. These models are trained to incrementally nudge samples of pure noise onto the distributions of their training data. Because they’re trained on noised versions of the training set, the models are able to better explore, navigate, and make use of the regions near the true data distribution in the denoising process. One of the biggest issues with GANs is a thing called “mode collapse” [2].
Could you help explain how we would achieve an attention score of exactly 0, in practice? Here’s my take:
If we’re subtracting one attention matrix from another, we’d end up with attention scores between -1 and 1, with a probability of effectively 0 for any single entry to exactly equal 0.
What’s more, the learnable parameter \lambda allows for negative values. This would allow the model to learn to actually add the attention scores, making a score of exactly 0 impossible.
My first exposure to computer architecture was through a Minecraft video[1] (which I likely stumbled upon on Digg). In Linear Algebra lecture the next day, I overheard my classmates discussing the video. I purchased the game later that week.
Seeing the circuitry of a computer in this way helped me to understand that computers operated by means other than pure magic. And, the video I saw was much less descriptive of how a computer works than the one the OP linked. So, although neither video amounts to a full college course on the topic, there’s still a lot of value in their ability to expose people to the topic. It’s inspiring to see how computers are mostly a composition of NAND gates, and to compare the massive structures in the videos with the microprocessors of the real world.