Mithriil

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.

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.

> "Mastery, even partial, is one of the few genuine avenues toward agency."

Philosophical claims have been made around this point. See, for example, "The Moral Obligation to Be Intelligent", an essay by John Erskine.

So many problems would be solved if a fraction of people would be more inclined to understand what's in front of them.

But then the pinch of resistance makes an island of likewise thinkers. And there doesn't need to be more than .05% of techies to make great products that otherwise anti-correlate with what people claim as inevitable.

We should stop with over-generalization like "The future is defined by the common man on the street." It's always much more complex than that. To every trend, there is a counter-trend (even sometimes alt-trends that are not actually opposites).

Actors that go against the current, for the sake of going against the current, exist. Always a minority, but never negligeable, I believe.

Just started going through the tutorial, and it is, indeed, mega-cool.

Btw, here's the identity matrix of size 3:

˙⊞=⇡3

(It takes the range [0,1,2] then outerproducts it with itself through equality.)

My opinion on the "Attention is all you need" paper is that its most important idea is the Positional Encoding. The transformer head itself... is just another NN block among many.

TIL that Earth crust is pushed down by glaciers, and that when glaciers subsides, the crust swells up a bit over years from the missing weight, pushing away water, slush and sliding glacier even faster.

Hard to fathom how "fluid" our ball of magma really is.

> since its commands were an inscrutable jumble of ill-fitting incantations, and it has remained this way until today

What command is he talking about? When you get that git is a graph manager, it gets really easy to manage, very quickly..

I like seeing something along the line of constructive logic in the wild (i.e. not (not p) != p).

Sounds like a development à la Cory Doctorov.

(Such as in his novel Attack Surface.)

For those that argue that concepts are not orthogonal or quasi-orthogonal, then see the quasi-orthogonal case as the worst-case: "if all concepts were black and white, then how many can we fit in k dimensions". When there are nuanced concepts, then they will fit in between these quasi-orthogonals ones. What's argued here is thus a lower-bound.

Relevant: Simpson's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

The DoE report citing heavily co2science.org as a source is laughable.

But it seems even worse to conflate human IQ and AI IQ.

Three cheers for the language that naturally requires a VR headset to visualize 5D tensor logic.

Anyone else sees an interesting analogy of "exploration vs exploitation"'s effects on the learning brain?

> His "sad truth" conclusion is that "Python cannot be super-fast" without breaking compatibility.

A decent case of Python 4.0?

> So, maybe, "a JIT compiler can solve all of your problems"; they can go a long way toward making Python, or any dynamic language, faster, Cuni said. But that leads to "a more subtle problem". He put up a slide with a trilemma triangle: a dynamic language, speed, or a simple implementation. You can have two of those, but not all three.

This trilemma keeps getting me back towards Julia. It's less simple than Python, but much faster (mitigated by pre-compilation time), and almost as dynamic. I'm glad this language didn't die.

It's currently just a rename. Apparently, they will update the GUI soon.

Author writes about and formalizes "consciousness of an object". Like "[Person A] has more consciousness than [Person B] about the object being described".

This kind of consciousness is relative to an object. Shouldn't Consciousness be more about what separates the self and something else?

So, what author talks about should be probably named "instantaneous understanding of an object in consciousness", not "Consciousness".

Also, I disagree about limiting things with the first premise:

> Everything/object has a description, that is, everything has a definite state (no matter what it is).

"Objects" are not permanent. A definite state is hardly possible, except maybe for sub-atomic particles that are be indivisible (according to our current models). And even then, you should describe how they exist with relation to processes and interactions with other particles.

Consciousness of an "object" is thus, I think, not something that has to do with its definite state. Unless you speak of "consciousness of an object through an instantaneous snapshot".

Did you read the article? One of the points is that frames are not a good metric anymore for NVIDIA, since they push the idea that gaming NEEDS AI-generated frames and bullies reviewers to include TAA, DLSS and other frame-boosting techs when giving framerates.

Glad someone formalized this.

Oh, they really did add Copilot to Notepad... :')

Makes me think of the Google employee that had a conversation with Google's LLM back then, which got out and triggered a lot of discussions about consciousness, etc.

In the original paper, it is said that of the 117 metrics they used to identify technical debt (3 of the 10 categories, TBE):

> The results were disappointing, to say the least. No single metric predicted reports of technical debt from engineers; our linear regression models predicted less than 1% of the variance in survey responses. The random forest models fared better, but they had high precision (>80%) and low recall (10%–25%).

It feels like the books higher up are not actual book. But it's hard to tell from the picture.

The Ministry for the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson. Realistic and optimistic climate fiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future

Unless it's from LessWrong, I usually read these with a grain of salt.

Try out the big LLMs for translating and explaining translation (e.g. ChatGPT). Much better than Google translate in my experience.

It seems to me that receiving a piece of land could be a liability. Some probably likes the freedom to choose where they live. Thus receiving money that one uses to pay rent is better than receiving by lottery a piece of land in the middle of nowhere. Some pieces of land live under municipal/regional rules that forces the user to take care of it in some way (build, prune trees, etc.)

An option to choose UB land or UB income when reaching 18yo might be an interesting compromise.