maaaaattttt

And I didn't realize "audio" had only one consonant!

This was harder than I thought it would be. It's pretty fun to play! May I suggest displaying the final result and/or ongoing progress as 18 circles/shapes that fill up depending on how far you made it?

maaaaattttt

8 日前議論

This guide is also made from me (or some of the me from a couple years back). I haven't read the whole thing yet and it's probably clearly stated at some point (though one can deduce it with the beginning already) but the surprise for me was that this field is highly statistical. Before starting I had the (very) naive view that it was possible to read the genome as one reads a file and look at what's going on. But the sequencing technics (and accompanying algorithms) only allow to statistically read the genome. So variants/mutations found are only found with a given statistical certainty. If the sample wasn't well prepared for example it could be that this certainty is ultimately not high enough to do a proper analysis/diagnostic. It's a fascinating field (try to watch a video on sequencing by expansion, to feel how sci-fi this field actually is) that is very hard to approach with only high-school biology level and this guide is really well done to sort of bridge this first gap.

maaaaattttt

先月議論

Could it be that Anthropic is using the Chinese characters trick to consume less tokens behind the scenes?

maaaaattttt

先月議論

I would be curious to know if the WGS was done using short read or long read. There is a lot of hope that long read is "just" what is needed to catch these type of cases nowadays (not sure about this particular one).

maaaaattttt

2 か月前議論

The contrast in my opinion comes more from the fact that 50 years prior to the space age people rode horses as a standard mean of transportation (more or less). It’s underwhelming to not see the line going from horse to rocket continue on the same path 50 years later.

maaaaattttt

6 か月前議論

Wouldn't these markets be the perfect "crime crowdsourcing" platform? Let's say a bad actor wants XYZ to happen so they organise a bet on XYZ not happening. Then make sure as many different accounts that they control directly or indirectly bet a lot of money in the same way. Now anyone willing to win the prize can decide to make sure it does happen and get the money (at least a high multiplicator of what they bet themselves).

Am I missing something? Maybe it's already being used in that way... in that case, it would be quite scary.

maaaaattttt

7 か月前議論

It's still not possible because of the high speculative aspect (even though stable coins offer some form of alternative but since they are anchored on the dollar, not so much). Change will happen when more people are impacted by unilateral decisions. If all of a sudden the US decided you/your business/your political party/your government is not aligned with their views, they could make sure that Visa/Mastercard/Paypal/Stripe/... stop accepting payments for that given group. Then you realize there are very little alternatives ready to go in that case (for online payments there are, but for physical ones not so much). So far this hasn't seem like a possibility at all, but, in my view at least, this has changed this past year.

maaaaattttt

7 か月前議論

In recent months I changed views and shifted from the desilluioned "this is a casino" mindset that is described in this article to a "we need this now" one. An example in this article [1], the US can now unilateraly decide to prevent an individual anywhere in the world from having a functioning financial life and this because of the quasi (western) duopoly that is Visa and Mastercard. Nothing against the US in general, this is simply too much power to put in a single decisional entity, whatever/wherever it is. The "crypto" related systems now seem like a needed extra option to the current payment system (the same way cash is almost always an alternative to credit/debit card payment and vice versa)

[1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/11/19/n...

maaaaattttt

8 か月前議論

Speaking of TF-IDF I once added it “after” the recommendations to downscore items that were too popular and tended to be recommended too much/with too many other items (think Beatles/iphone) and inversely for more niche items. It might be too costly too do depending on how you generate the recommendations though.

maaaaattttt

9 か月前議論

Not sure if you’re joking but a relatively small datacenter I’m familiar with has reduced oxygen in it to prevent fires. If you were to break in unannounced you would faint or maybe worse (?).

maaaaattttt

11 か月前議論

It’s the most likely explanation I believe. I have no idea about the content distribution of the training data but I would have assumed twitter and Reddit content would completely dwarf the literary content. Somewhat good that if it’s indeed not the case!

maaaaattttt

11 か月前議論

I think this whole em dash topic should lead to some deeper (though not very deep) conversations:

* If it was not widely used before where/how did (chat)GPT picked it up?

    * If it was widely used, then it shouldn't be a topic at all. But, there seems to be informal agreement that it wasn’t widely used.
    
    * Or, could GPT have inferred that even though it's not widely used, it's the better way to go (to use it). Which then makes one wonder about the whole probability of next token idea. Maybe this line of thinking falls too short of what might be really going on internally.

 * If it had picked up something that is widely used but in the wrong way, it should make us pause (again) about the future feedback loops these LLMs, which aren't going away, are already creating. Not just in terms of grammar and spelling but also in terms of way of thinking and seeing the world.

(edit: formatting)

maaaaattttt

11 か月前議論

Maybe do something close to what I like to believe the brain does and have a meta model wrap a "base" model. The meta model gets the output data from the base model (edit: plus the original input) as input plus some meta parameters (for example the probability each token had when it was chosen and/or better which "neurons" were activated during the whole output sequence which would include the Persona they mention). It's then the meta model that generates new output data based on this input and this is the output that is shown to the user.

maaaaattttt

昨年議論

Given your premise (which I agree with) I think the issue in general comes from the lack of a good, broadly accepted definition of what AGI is. My initial comment originates from the fact that in my internal definition, an AGI would have a de facto understanding of the physics of "our world". Or better, could infer them by trial and error. But, indeed, it doesn't have to be the case. (The other advantage of the Zelda games is that they introduce new abilities that don't exist in our world, and for which most children -I've seen- understand the mechanisms and how they could be applied to solve a problem quite naturaly even they've never had that ability before).

maaaaattttt

昨年議論

I've said this somewhere else, but we have the perfect test for AGI in the form of any open world game. Give the instructions to the AGI that it should finish the game and how to control it. Give the frames as input and wait. When I think of the latest Zelda games and especially how the Shrine chanllenges are desgined they especially feel like the perfect environement for an AGI test.

maaaaattttt

昨年議論

That's what I understood from the explanation on stackexchange. But given what you said, if we take the plank length as the shortest length unit, and we consider two theoretical "objects" placed at one plank length away from each other. Does the universe expanding for these two objects mean: 1. the plank length is becomming bigger, 2. more plank lengths are added in between the two objects, 3. Something else and I'm completely off

maaaaattttt

昨年議論

On a somewhat related note I'm wondering what the expansion of the universe means for our bodies and matter in general? I think, like the accepted answer suggests, the forces on the atomic level make it so that larger structures get back to a certain equilibrium even if constantly streched equaly in all directions. But I have a hard time imagining what the universe expanding really means on a human/solar system scale. I know of the inflatable balloon analogy, but to me, matter is not on the ballon, rather it is the rubber the ballon is made of.

I have never seen this really explained in details to the general public which I belong to. Maybe that's a sign I'm completely misunderstanding the subject though.

maaaaattttt

昨年議論

This was a great read, thank you for sharing it!

maaaaattttt

昨年議論

It makes sense to me... I think. And I like this vision as well. It would explain the big bang (initial black hole formation), why the universe is expending (at probably non constant rates over time) which would be the black hole "ingesting" matter and growing and maybe also why time and space are one. Same as you, a take from complete uneducated pop-sci fueled imagination.

コメント