HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

Mithriil

no profile record

comments

Mithriil
·8 hari yang lalu·discuss
And what the author goes and shows are equalities, not tautologies.
Mithriil
·15 hari yang lalu·discuss
This is of the 26th of May.
Mithriil
·24 hari yang lalu·discuss
If you hold the eraser for a second at the center, I find that it destroys the image more often than not.
Mithriil
·2 bulan yang lalu·discuss
It's relevant to the "thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters".
Mithriil
·2 bulan yang lalu·discuss
'Always free' does not sound like an opinion.
Mithriil
·2 bulan yang lalu·discuss
The ratio of AI startups at YC surprised me... (slide 48). This is a clear trend.
Mithriil
·2 bulan yang lalu·discuss
> Probabilistic analysis can carry you very, very far in doing something that looks like logical inference at the surface level, but it is nonetheless not logical inference.

A statistical approximation of logical inference (as vague as I state it) could (and will) very well pass for logical inference, at least for the common people, whose logic skills are far from perfect.

Also, humans are certainly not capable of the perfect logical inference you speak of. And I get the irony of what I'm saying with such certitude. Logic is still framed in axioms that are framed in languages, we'll never truly get there. Ah, but absoluteness gets in the way of practicality.

Yet, here we are with a tool, that is maybe not at its prime yet, that equals and beat many human beings at logical inference on some problems that are pragmatically relevant. Should I say symptoms of logical inference at that point?

As to why LLMs capacity for (apparent) logical inference is only limited to specific use cases, I don't have a clue. But I'd like to argue that, humans are like that too.
Mithriil
·2 bulan yang lalu·discuss
> nobody understands the fundamentals

Funny statement to be found in the discussion about... research results on the fundamentals.
Mithriil
·2 bulan yang lalu·discuss
Asymptotics has been used to validate tons of statistical tools. This is just another tool being validated.

If you have a tool that you don't know works when data increases (n-> infinity), then you shouldn't use it.

So practicaly, I believe it has serious implications.
Mithriil
·2 bulan yang lalu·discuss
I don't think that this is true. You need an infinite number of dimensions for this (think Taylor's expansion, Fourier expansion, infinitely wide or deep NNs..)
Mithriil
·2 bulan yang lalu·discuss
As someone who worked with Nadaraya-Watson regression in the pass, the result that infinitely wide NNs converges to kernel regression baffles me.
Mithriil
·3 bulan yang lalu·discuss
Add the feature of doing a high five for the rare cases when it's actually good.
Mithriil
·3 bulan yang lalu·discuss
> instantly

Shor's and Grover's still are algorithm that require a massive amount of steps...
Mithriil
·3 bulan yang lalu·discuss
I would expect such a law to be lobbied to death.
Mithriil
·3 bulan yang lalu·discuss
The Google's n-gram dataset link is outdated. You can get them here: https://storage.googleapis.com/books/ngrams/books/datasetsv3...
Mithriil
·3 bulan yang lalu·discuss
The half-life idea is interesting.

What's the loop behind consolidation? Random sampling and LLM to merge?
Mithriil
·4 bulan yang lalu·discuss
Bayesian network is a really general concept. It applies to all multidimensional probability distribution. It's a graph that encodes independence between variables. Ish.

I have not taken the time to review the paper, but if the claim stands, it means we might have another tool to our toolbox to better understand transformers.
Mithriil
·5 bulan yang lalu·discuss
Worry not, I came here full speed after the first paragraph to say the same thing.
Mithriil
·6 bulan yang lalu·discuss
Whether foreign companies pay or not for the tarrifs is clear here. However, I want to point that not receiving income from reduced trade is an impact of its own. An indirect way to pay for the tariffs, so to speak.
Mithriil
·7 bulan yang lalu·discuss
I think what people tend to forget when speaking of inevitability is that the scope of their statement is important.

*Existence* of a situation as inevitable isn't so bold of a claim. For example, someone will use an AI technology to cheat on an exam. Fine, it's possible. Heck, it is mathematically certain if we have a civilization that has exams and AI techs, and if that civilization runs infinitely.

*Generality* of a situation as inevitable, however, tends to go the other way.