byyyy

To me it doesn't make sense. Why doesn't this exact same logic apply to individual success?

He cut to the chase. Which is what he said.

The logical implications of genetics determining IQ is obvious.

If genetics can determine physical appearance and genetics groups many certain physical aspects into a collection of common features for a race then if genetics determines intelligence, by what black magic does this grouping suddenly stop at intelligence?

Are we saying genetics can make Asians all have black hair, brown eyes, a tendency of a smaller size and suddenly zero effect on intelligence? Doesn't seem logical.

Thus when someone brings up intelligence and genetics it is by inescapable logic that they are also saying something about race.

This is the paradox of IQ.

IQ is only a slight predictor of individual of individual success there are many other factors that are superior to IQ for predicting individual success.

However the paradox is that while IQ is not a good predictor of individual success, the economic success of a country correlates heavily with the average IQ of the people in that country.

It is a paradox. One cannot simply say that IQ doesn't "predict" success. From the data, the answer seems much more complicated.

Of course. This is obvious. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. Just look at animal IQ.

Clearly human intelligence is determined genetically.

However, although human intelligence is clearly genetic and superior to most other animal intelligences there could be enough variability within the boundaries of human level intelligence such that variation in intelligence between humans could be influenced more heavily by other factors.

I recall reading an article about two high IQ and talented parents... both professors in very hard academic fields talking about their child and how they were trying to push their child into roles with high IQ.

The parents were from China too so you can imagine the intensity of this of this pressure.

Then one day the father realized that his child did not inherit the high IQ of both him and his wife. It wasn't a matter of not working hard or being lazy.

He realized the error of his ways... that the intense pressure he put on his daughter was wrong.

I can't seem to find that article anymore. But being Asian myself it really got me thinking and curious whether their are other parents out their who experienced something similar and what's it like for the parent or the child?

Like how does Micheal Jordan react to the fact that his son will never have the abilities he had no matter how much his son tries or how much pressure he puts on him?

And I'm saying this strategy does absolutely nothing to alleviate the need for an actual raise.

You realize that the stock could've been bought with or without the raise?

Buying stock does not magically eliminate the need for a raise.

You're mistaken and you're intuition is off. It lines up absolutely.

Debris is almost any configuration of atoms that are considered trash or unusable.

There's are much more ways you can configure atoms to form useless trash then you can to make cars. Case in point "you" can manufacture "debris" or "trash" by throwing something into a trash can. Simple.

When's the last time you manufactured a car? Never.

>As a passing thought I've noticed that there's also sort of like a fierce loyalty to defending LLM's in the forums, often by people who display a certain amount of ignorance as to how they work. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic there as to the people who are justifying the cheaters in the comments?

No it's the other way around. Hinton, basically the father of "AI" and other real experts who are involved in the creation of LLMs are massively divided about the future. Hinton even says the AI actually understands you. The fact that there's division among the real experts (ie not you or me) shows theirs legitimacy in the defense.

There's a fierce artificial downplaying of AI when it comes to programming. A lot of people say that it's not remotely close to replacing programmers. I think this is the delusional group. It's not replacing us yet, but it's obviously close and the trendline is unmistakable.

I think it occurs because a lot of people's identity rests on their actual ability to program. They think they're superior programmers and the fact that a machine is on track to trivialize the skills they take so much pride in causes them to dismiss the technology in the face of actual experts who fear and question it. There's bias on both extremes and one Hallmark of bias is when one fails to address the division and actual controversy.

You have failed to address the controversy instead you categorize people who "defend" AI as people who don't "understand" it and you imply it's some psychological quirk or bias people have. I agree somewhat, but clearly not all who "defend" AI are like this as their are preeminent experts who are on the "defence" side. Instead I think your behavior is an exhibition of other common psychological defensive quirks and biases.

I think you don't realize how it's a dog eat dog world out there and people will do anything to succeed. Maybe your born with talent, so you worship and defend that talent with calls to uphold "integrity." Others, however, will do anything in their power to stay afloat in the face of your "talent." It's more about survival for humans then it is about integrity. Do people really want to live a shitty life getting sub 100k salaries only letting people like you take up all the high paying jobs in the name of "integrity"? No. No one does... not even you, but you have the luxury of talent or ability to master those interviews... that is the only differentiator.

I bet if you couldn't pass those interviews you would be in the same boat. You defend integrity not because you are a stand up person, but because you have the ability to succeed without violating your integrity. That's all.

One thing to note about people is often their truth strangely aligns with their circumstance in life. Why? Most people do not seek actual truth. Instead they construct the truth as a scaffold to support themselves and the weight of their sins. You are no different. I'm pretty sure you are quite good at the technical interview and That strange alignment with your philosophy on interview integrity is Not a coincidence.

Personally I'm unique in this regard. I'm good at interviewing but in my quest in seeking the objective truth of the world... I have, to my own detriment, constructed a life where my truth is not in alignment with what I am in actuality.

Motion blur is an accurate rendition of how humans see things. Your eyes are not fast enough to take instantaneous pictures of fast moving objects. Instead when an object moves fast on an interval too fast for us to perceive we see everything that object did on that interval in the form of a "motion blur"

Games that render frames don't actually replicate this because the object is rendered on discreet instances. Thus your eye is not able to properly capture the "motion blur" from a set of stop motion images.

To fix this, games must use artificial motion blur to replicate what the eyes see. Disabling motion blur is a mistake it is required for fidelity.

The problem with motion blur is if it's done for objects moving too slowly. Then it becomes noticeable because if your eyes are fast enough to capture the object without blur then adding blur becomes noticeable.

>I haven’t seen it solve anything what I would consider even remotely complex.

Its solving things that was unthinkably impossible to solve by AI.

Think of it logically. Before it could do 0% of our ability. With chatGPT it increases to 30%. With a domain specific LLM trained to target code... that increases to about 50%.

A person with 50% of their brain is obviously mentally deficient. It's not even comparable to human intelligence. It's like a stupid assistant. Helpful, but still stupid.

The issue here isn't really about the comparison between ai capabilities and human capabilities. It's about progress.

That 30% to 50% trendline in LLMs and other areas of improvement in AI is the Same trendline as we see in say creative writing, art, etc. Etc.

It points to the fact that coding is not inherently superior to other forms of creation because the trendline is exactly the same. In fact drawing really good art is actually harder then programming (no 6 months boot camps for art).

We are unfortunately on target for replacement because the next data point on that trendline is obviously not 51%. It's wishful thinking and illogical to ignore the obvious trendline.

They have a very high passing rate when the user is not actively investigating if the entity they are chatting with is an LLM.

Thus the goal post has moved to incorporate this aspect. The goal post will keep moving as LLMs improve.

No those were never official goal posts. The one goal post was official and famous was the Turing test that measured if a human could tell the difference between a text chat generated by an AI or one generated by a human. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

Literally the inventor of the Turing machine came up with this test so this was always the north star goal post since computing began. It's a way higher bar then any of the nameless goal posts you mentioned.

Unfortunately this goal post was also just moved recently with LLMs.

Do you see the irony?

You wrote code that could have eliminated other people's jobs.

Someone else "wrote" chatGPT and it very much looks like the precursor to the thing that could eliminate your job. I can almost imagine the people at openai having the same "Whoops" attitude as you.

>Unfortunately, a lot of people make entire careers of that kind of work. "Paper pusher" type jobs are the most at risk but so are the low end of lots of creative jobs like copywriting, graphic design and even script writing.

Don't forget programming jobs. I wouldn't classify programmers as "low end" as that's sort of an offensive categorization.

But among the set of careers you have chosen as a target for replacement... Programming is among that group. I mean LLMs are obviously translating English to code in a way that was never seen before.

Given that you're a programmer on a site that is mostly made up of programmers I wonder why that specific career was not mentioned. Seems a little convenient to me.

I'm not saying this is you, but I feel there is a lot of hostile defensiveness on the capabilities of AI because the AI potentially trivializes our abilities as programmers. If we are among the group of careers you labeled as "low level" then are we not "low level" ourselves? Do we have the fortitude and objectiveness to accept that?

Probably not.

In my opinion. No. Watch comparison videos as well, you can barely tell the difference.

Tbh when compared with raytracing I couldn't tell if it was better when playing. Note that I could tell it was very different but I couldn't tell if it was "better".

When watching direct comparison videos path tracing was slightly better when someone pointed out more accurate lighting details but not in a way that was noticeable if someone didn't point it out.

What I found works for path tracing is objects that don't have strong textures or bump mapping. I've tried this when writing my own path tracer in a programming project (not cyberpunk) for simple monochrome spheres. Then in that case it makes it look very real, but in something as visually detailed as cyberpunk it's barely noticeable.

I also think the lighting in cyberpunk is too urban and neon. It's not something our eyes evolved to interprete with extreme fidelity so our brains cant really see the difference. I think the effect is much more noticeable in environments with fewer light sources and light sources that aren't neon. For this reason I suspect red dead redemption 2 would benefit much more from path tracing.

That's just my opinion. I have a 3090.

Makes sense. In movies I see things like a dirty arrow or a sword is guaranteed death from infection. Assuming the movie portrayal is accurate what is the differentiating thing that causes a dirty wound from a weapon to kill but not a dirty knick?

The technical term for this is macrostate. It is not a linguistic sleight of hand.

It is literally within the formal definition entropy. Debris is a high entropy macrostate, while a car occupies a lower entropy macrostate. There are less possible atomic configurations for cars then their is for debris. Each of these individual configurations of atoms is called a microstate.

A macrostate is a collection of microstates that you define. Depending on the definition you choose that definition has an associated probability. So if you choose to define macrostate as a car, you are choosing a collection of microstates that have a low probability of occuring.

The law of thermodynamics says that systems will, over time, will gain entropy meaning they naturally progress to high probability macrostates over time. So in other words, complexity is destroyed over time by specific laws of entropy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(statistical_thermod...

The reason why this occurs is straightforward. As a system evolves and randomly jiggles over time it trends towards high probability configurations like "debris" because simply that configuration has a high probability of occuring. Generally the more billions of microstates a macrostate contains the higher entropy that macrostate is.

Through logic and probability and the second law of thermodynamics we have a formal definition of complexity and we see that complexity naturally destroys itself or degrades with time.

This is the thing that confuses people about entropy. It's definition is a generality based on microstates and macrostates you choose to define yourself. It's similar to calling a function with generics in programming where you choose to define the generic at the time of the call.

But even within this generic world their are laws (traits in rust or interfaces in c++) that tell us how that generic should behave. Just like how entropy tells us that macrostates we define will always trend towards losing complexity.

The heat death of the universe is the predicted end of the universe where all complexity is inevitably lost forever. You can define that macrostate as the collection of all microstates that do not contain any form of organization.

No. Causation is different from correlation. "Associated with" means correlation, "probable cause" means causation. Causation is the stronger statement here.

While technically association is a prerequisite for causation (correlation doesn't imply causation but causation implies correlation) probable "cause" is too strong of a term here because the experiment didn't actually do a causative test. "Possible cause" might be better here because the title heavily implies a causative study was done.

Do note that in science nothing can be proven so in actuality probable cause is really the highest form of verification that can be made. That is the claim in the title.

Antibiotics?

It's a breakthrough but this research doesn't establish the claim in the title of the article.

The next step is to establish causality. They will have to deliberately remove (and maintain removal of) this bacteria from certain people and measure the progress of parkinsons over many years. There will also be a control group given placebos. The difference between these two groups will be the factor that crystallizes the claim made here.

In that case complexity is created thereby proving my point anyway.

Typically I define complexity as a low probability macrostate meaning low entropy. So debris generated from the explosion has a high probability of randomly occuring, while a new car has a very low probability of randomly occuring.

Following this definition you arrive at a formal definition of complexity that is intuitive.

Imagine a tornado that randomly reconfigures everything in it's wake. The more complex something is the less likely the tornado is going to reconfigure everything into that thing. So it is very likely for a tornado to reconfigure things into debris and extremely extremely unlikely for the tornado to reconfigure everything into a brand new car. A tornado reconfiguring atoms into a car seems to be impossible but it is not, it is simply a low probability nearly impossible configuration.

Therefore the car is more complex then exploded debris.

Think about this definition because it also aligns intuitively with the effort required and technical complexity of any object. The more effort and technical complexity it has the lower chance it has of a tornado randomly reconfiguring atoms to form that object. Thus that object is more "complex".

Whatever your definition is, the quote saying complexity cannot be created or destroyed is fundamentally from any perspective usually not true. If you want to define it as simply microservices or monoliths it still doesn't make sense. Whose to say that when converting a monolith to microservices that complexity remains conserved? Likely the complexity rises or lowers a bit or a lot. Complexity doesn't remain the same even if you use informal and inexact fuzzy definitions of complexity.

>Fun part is there is no “better” in generic terms.

No. It goes further then this. We actually don't even know if one is better or not.

There is no formal theory that allows us to prove these designs. For example we have formal theory behind algorithm complexity that quantifies runtime cost but no such theory exists for engineering design patterns. We aren't even sure what to quantify.

But just because a formal theory doesn't yet exist doesn't mean one can be developed in the future. Until then these system designs will be like history... Always repeating itself.

>Complexity can neither be created nor destroyed, only moved somewhere else.

Not true. I blow.up a car. Complexity is destroyed. I rebuild the car from blown up parts. Complexity is created.

There's no underlying generic philosophical point about microservices and monoliths. What we can say is that microservices are not necessarily less complex than monoliths, but this relationship has no bearing on the nature of complexity itself.

Because we can't definitively prove which one is better.

There is no formal theory around system design so you get people complaining about how monoliths are error prone and way too complex and you get people complaining about microservices with the exact same argument.

The result is that with a period of about a decade the industry just oscillates between the two methodologies in an endless flat circle.

Monoliths will come in vogue again in the 2020s.

Certainly given the information available one can make a fuzzy speculation on the cause.

The cause likely has to do with Google and the location given that this is the second suicide from the same company and location.

There is actually a hierarchy of reincarnation with enlightenment being at the top.

You can think of it like a mouse is lower form of life and if he works on his karma he can reincarnate as a racoon and then then if the racoon works on himself he can reincarnate as a monkey all the way up until enlightenment.

The animal right before reincarnation as an enlightened being is of course man.

But do you know what being is right before man?

Woman.

True story. Not even joking here. If a woman works on her karma, she supposedly can reincarnate as a man.