The article clearly states that it’s using our colloquial meaning of “computer” as a metaphor to help convey their thought experiment. It even has a disclaimer about using metaphors.
FWIW I think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I think it’s especially interesting to draw the parallel to biology. Clearly our brains are doing computation by even the strictest definition of computer, so at which biological level does computation stop? A chunk of my brain is clearly doing computation, a neuron must be doing computation since that is the building block for our brains. Single cells must also be doing computation since a single cell had all of the computational knowledge encoded in it to build me. All of these processes are built upon physical reality, so it’s not that big a leap that similar processes might emerge elsewhere and at different scales and using different physical mechanisms.
This is awesome! As a software person who dabbles in hardware, I cannot believe that HW folks put up with such arcane, slow, and cumbersome tools. I think anyone who’s critical of this idea has no idea how good they could be having it.
Yeah Carmack is no doubt a 20x engineer, but I wouldn’t put him in the same category of prolific genius as Euler. As far as prolific engineers go, I’d say Fabrice Bellard would be closer (but still not even close) to an Euler.
All of ML, including DL, are literally implemented using mathematical models. Alas, a model is just a model and doesn’t imply it works well or imply that it’s simple or easily discoverable.
The difference though is that generally there is a cap on how much is costs to live comfortably. If someone is so rich that they can live exclusively off interest, then they get to live comfortably and keep their initial investment. Another thread called this reaching escape velocity which I think is an apt term for it.
Isn’t the idea that with this cement mixture your house’s foundation acts as energy storage “for free”?
I think the application is for cases where you’re already using cement as a building material, so you might as well mix in some carbon and also get energy storage out of it.
Ok I misunderstood what it means to be a paradox, this does seem to apply. The point I was intending to make is that the composition of 2 games entails a new game which creates an entirely new ruleset and therefore new potential outcomes. On the spectrum of paradoxes this one doesn’t feel particularly profound, but perhaps it’s due to the examples being especially contrived.
I don’t really understand how this is a paradox, but it’s definitely surprising and non intuitive.
It seems like if you have 2 games A and B, the second you start playing them together you’ve effectively created a new game C, which is a game of A and B combined.