Rioghasarig

I really doubt it's like a "solid junior developer". If it could do the work of a solid junior developer it would be making programming projects 10-100x faster because it can do things several times faster than a person can. Maybe it can write solid code for certain tasks but that's not the same thing as being a junior developer.

I think it was deliberate but just as a joke.

This doesn't seem very helpful at all. First it seems impossibly difficult to execute and probably won't benefit the artists much.

>Not, if the worker is an engineer or similar. Some engineers built tools that improved building tools

Those engineers consented to creating the new tools so that's different

How is it "technically correct"? It's just plain wrong.

Clearly pi = 0003.14159...

> You only see top programmers who started as kids and probably won some Olympiads and programming competitions, and this continued in their 20s and maybe kept their skill up till 30s but that's about it. What do they do after that?

I know in mathematics, winning the math olympiad makes someone far more likely to win the Fields medal, but I haven't heard of a similar correlation in programming (e.g. for the Turing award).

I don't see how being a young prodigy gives someone an advantage in most of the programming world.

How in the world is that disingenuous? That's the direct implication.

> As any generalization this one too is, of course, incorrect.

His statement wasn't a generalization to repeating this back does not make sense.

I mean that's where the term came from, after all.

I think the description in the article was actually good. In particular, the part where they say:

> This is the metaphor used to describe the unpredictability of chaotic systems:tiny uncertainties in the initial conditions of a system grow and grow until they completely destroy the accuracy of any forecast

This doesn't seem too far off from you say.

Doesn't change the fact that it's a bad experiment. Anyone familiar with DALL-E would predict this result. He should have taken some time to understand what DALL-E can do and proposed an actually interesting experiment.

I think it's just a bad experiment. The author must have been truly ignorant about the capabilities and utilities of DALL-E if he thought this experiment would yield interesting results.

If he didn't deliberately to make DALL-E look bad than he did it out of ignorance of what DALL-E's strengths and weaknesses are. Your evaluation of what is "simple" and what is "more complex" aren't in line with what DALL-E is capable of.

DALL-E isn't good with symbols like letters and numbers. It can't do even very much logical / mathematical reasoning. So a graph is one of the worst choices.

What it can do is make aesthetically pleasing images that match basic descriptions. So there are more "complex" images that DALL-E can produce than basic graphs.

Well that's what mathematicians like to do.

My understanding of this situation is that they found a way to multiply 4x4 matrices that requires fewer multiplications than Strassen's . This implies that that can generalize to a way to multiply n x n matrices with a better theoretical complexity than Strassen's algorithm.

You don't know that.

This guy was born to be a Nintendo hacker.

I don't see anything wrong with this situation. People who exhibit profit-seeking behavior (entrepreneurs) can make much more money than people don't exhibit profit-seeking behavior (PhD students). That sounds like a reasonable system to me.

> goal post moving

You're being silly. The guy is explaining his perspective. He's explaining what he believes and why he believes it. He's not writing a thesis or constructing some logical argument. This isn't a debate. Applying the term "goal post moving" to this makes absolutely no sense.

I just feel like you're taking a confrontational approach rather than just trying to understand his position. Nothing he says is inherently contradictory.

Even the smartest people can be wrong and it can take an outside perspective for them to realize this. This isn't an example of someone "fileting" another's argument. It's an example of two professionals have a conversation and arriving at an agreement.

Nelson was making an extraordinary claim so the odds were definitely against him.

> His official IQ of 230 remains the highest officially measured IQ in the world.

Terrence Tao doesn't have an official IQ. People like to make up numbers for smart people's IQs.

That's a pretty bold model for human cognition. It's not something you can just assume.

This article is missing so much. He keeps saying F# is the best but doesn't describe anything about the language. He discussed the criteria he was using but didn't say anything about how F# excels in these criteria.

It feels more like an introduction section than a whole article.

Nah, man. This "we all did this" is just not true. Power is not equally distributed among people. A few people in charge of oil and gas companies have more power to affect the state of affairs than thousands of normal people. So, no, I do not buy that "it's everyone's fault".

Yes I was asserting that algorithms are by definition deterministic. But I guess you can technically consider non-deterministic algorithms but those aren't really relevant here. Computers don't behave non-deterministically. Every program in your computer describes a deterministic process.

I guess you're right. But I was trying to defend Valmar's statement which I still think is basically right in this context. Computers can't really implement non-deterministic algorithms.

Yeah the issue seems to be the concept of a "word" not being precisely defined. But I don't think that's a problem. I'd be concerned if the numbers were dramatically different but they're pretty close so there isn't an issue.

If exact precision is necessary you probably shouldn't rely on imprecise terms like "word".

>> To give an example, what if the algorithm is to generate the correct algorithm?

That's not a description of an algorithm. You've stated a "problem". An algorithm, by definition, is an actual deterministic procedure.

> This is the philosophical justification for why a (Turing) machine can calculate anything a human can (in fact, the same argument shows that a Turing machine can reproduce the behaviour of any physical system).

I don't think this assertion follows. I don't think an argument like this can work without delving further into reasonable description of a "physical system".

If you just just use the mathematics we employ to describe physical systems unreservedly it is possible to construct "physical systems" that exhibit non-computable behavior. For instance you can have computable and continuous initial conditions to the wave equation that produces a solution that is non-computable. See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_in_Analysis_and_...

I think it's important to emphasize that Turing stated his arguments in regards to "effective procedure" (which I see you mention in a different post). I don't think the substitution of "effective procedure" with "physical system" is justified.