Why must the abstractions be tokenized? I can notice myself feeling things, and surely that counts as awareness of the self. If you notice that you are full of anger or joy, you notice that _you_ exist.
We're two Northeastern University students (jfz and drassaby on HN), and one professor (not on HN), who started this project because there were no frameworks that allowed people to productionize evolutionary algorithms by running them in distributed environments. We wanted to make a type-safe, user-friendly interface to a parallel backend that would allow optimization problems to be solved more easily. We have validated the framework, using it in a paper that evolved fair and accurate machine learning models (https://github.com/julian-zucker/evolving-fair-models/blob/m...). This project is still in early beta, but it is mature enough to be used for proofs of concept and to play with high-performance evolutionary algorithms.
Let us know what you think and how you want to see the project develop! We'd be happy to answer any questions you might have either here or at: [email protected] and [email protected]
I've been working on a Genetic Algorithm/Evolutionary Computing framework in Scala, using network-parallelism to solve optimization problems fast. If you're interested, check it out at https://github.com/evvo-labs/evvo
This is critical - even if no individual study has positive results, the data from each study can be aggregated and that meta-analysis can find results much more easily. I remember reading (but can't find the link to) an article about a medicine that took many trials to have one trial with statistical significance, but a meta-analysis of the first five or so trials would have revealed the efficacy of the drug under test much sooner and at a much lower cost.
There is a massive difference between doing something that will clearly hurt someone and choosing to do only work that benefits you. Researchers are currently under no obligation to write up their null findings, and it would be hard to get null findings in prestigious journals. This should be fixed at an institutional level, like the pre-registration of studies in the article, not as a mandate to each individual researcher to write up and publish every study.
I have seen companies saying they have a thousand microservices to mean that they have a thousand microservice servers running, but they might have hundreds of application servers in each service pulling from the same queue.
Most people will say that the motivation to work on a problem should come from you being really excited about the problem domain. Play around with someone else's code, trying to do something interesting to you that's just barely on the edge of what the provided code can do. Then, when you realize you just need that one feature to do something awesome, you can write it yourself. Don't contribute to open source because you feel like you should, contribute to open source because you want the project to have the features you're contributing.
The benefits of cycling outweigh the harms of the pollution, almost everywhere. The pollution is still harmful, though, and lowers your lifespan compared to not having as much pollution.
Would you still apply the term "gossip" to talking about celebrities or politicians? When you are talking about people in their professional capacities (talking about the politics of the politicians, and talking about the pastimes of the celebrities), you can discuss substantive concepts. Gossip typically refers to discuss the character of the absent party - discussing software written by your friend isn't gossip if the focus of the conversation is the software, not the friend.
Because IQ is a measure of abstract analytical and pattern-matching intelligence, our economic shift towards more analytical/intelligence-driven work causes us to practice those skills more. I could say that FQ (factory-production quotient) has decreased over the last 150 years, but that doesn't mean that people are more or less intelligent, only that they practice different things.
It would actually be surprising to find them doing it. Even from a business perspective, their other breaches of ethics (and privacy) all made them money. Large-scale eugenics wouldn't make money for FB, at least not in the next 18 years.