donnowhy

> until this gets independently replicated.

hmm, very interesting. I don't think it works like that anymore. The next step has got to be commercial availability. else investors to would loose money or worse, some Chinese company could "steal" the future profits from this valuable novel technology painstakingly developed by the publishing group.

like how success of a species becomes the failure of the same species. the endless cycles of success and failure.

also in multi-generational wealth: poor and hard working become successful (when society allows it) then the descendants are lazy and loose the wealth, and finally further descendants are poor and may learn to work hard.

that is, until societies re-organize and stop rewarding hard-work with success; what happens next is still happening, it's what we see in our actual political leadership, it's not very effective and is dragging the world into a seemingly unavoidable war. (both china and USA blaming each other for the escalating: "they (the other) should change course cuz we won't"

> Actually, a simple, well-crafted command builder that can query real-life recipes would do.

but if you want to "raise some funding" you better find a way to talk about "chat-gtp like bots" in your pitch

category theory is 'native 2-dimensional' math. i.e. category theory explains everything in terms of graphs, where a graph is made from two different sorts of 'entities', nodes and vertices i.e. categories and morphisms

this being math, I wonder to which extent can category theory be re-expressed in terms of sets.

perhaps a better question is if category theory can be re-expressed (or founded on) functions?

lastly, I wonder if category theory can be expressed in terms of functions (i think maybe it can, without sets?) why shouldn't it be expressible in terms of sets (for some reason I don't think just sets are sufficient, may have to define functions (which possible in terms of sets) before 'expressing' categories starting with set theory)?

on the other hand, this same pattern of "authoritarianism" is what we all learn to have when becoming adult members of our societies/cultures: it's an expression of one persons' individual consciousness with the ability to control their own behavior.

this gets weird when projecting our individual consciousness into the systems we construct to rule over ourselves (governments)... better known as our tendency (and capacity) to anthropomorphize anything.

> The author is proposing a model that [allegedly] does a good job of explaining why we see unexpected behavior

I agree, and go even further:

models that explain behavior are all we have ever had.

it's all only "models that explain this or that" all the way to the 'bottom'. To suppose we can really directly access the "the real objective truth of what's happening" is to ignore the way in which we connect with the "real objective truth"; the same as fish who ignore the ocean.

to argue about what is really happening is to argue about which words to use to describe what is really happening without noticing the nature of languages/words and frameworks or 'systems of thought' which we are using to argue (and indeed, are arguing about)

all this summed up by this quote from about about the pedagogy programing languages: "Sometimes the truest things can only be said in fiction"

sounds to me like a wave with a positive and a negative part.

which IMO is what drives constructive/destructive interference in waves.

my take away is that any LLM that can behave "good" must also be able to behave "badly"; philosophically, because it's not possible to encode "good" without somehow "accidentally" but unavoidably also encoding "bad/evil".

This is well aligned with the rest of my understanding about the nature of reality including it's mathematically determined limitations (diagonals, infinities, paradoxes) and so on.

nonetheless, to witness the entire cognitive process of the author, as misguided as you find their conclusions, is a positive constructive experience isn't it?

IMO, the main point of the article is to assert that in some fields (medicine and science) this "assumption that his ontological conclusions exist as objective reality" is needed, and that to do away with this 'assumption' is 'irrational' and sends one down the path towards authoritarianism.

This involves more epistemology than usual

I think atm the Fed is the main force holing the USA together, considering all the bi-partisan polarization

all ways to divert the "voltage" across elite and commoner classes which are the real source of this tension.

I'm saying that wealth inequality creates something quite comparable to 'voltage', this creates a tension which WILL get released (because physics). But due to active (social-)technological management this tension is getting re-focused into blue Vs red bi-partisan politics, as well as other expressions of winners fighting losers (including gender 'equality' tensions, trans and transphobics, etc..)

most certainly.

another example of dumb and costly mistakes is putting a capitalistic-optimization scheme in charge of medical care

alas, for some reason (many of them, indeed) most of these 'problems' cannot be corrected. for a few powerful interests these aren't problems at all.

I fear the end game of a fully propieatary software world is that the only real way people interact with computers is app stores, programming is not something people can learn online anymore (but it used to). not even command line, just app stores. the new "hello world" in this dystopia is "go to app store, buy hello world the app, done".

this is "GOOD BUSINESS" and bad (evil) everything else. oh the humanity

ah, so focus on the inherent void behind all reality... very zen

...this is a skill that is difficult to develop, hard to teach, and impossible to test (if somebody can do it)

time to do a Peru (or Bolivia, or Chile, or Argentina, or ....). best of luck to the CIA agents "NOT" working on it (plausibly deny... wink wink)

but the moon milk cows are at the moment getting decimated by the moon cheese lovers in a mad rush to make more pizza; they're at war!

it's a risky time to do moon business, there's even a faction that would get rid of the moon cuz it's not something they have back home and they don't get it

call me old school... but why is this even on github? there's no code... just a README (an advertisement?) with a tutorial and a link to download a binary blob

this feels like some kind of 'guerrilla advertisement' or something, piggybacked into github for no reason other than (what seems to be) "PR"-style reasoning

I'm on a deep strange trip into the differences between "animated" and "inanimated" entities with only the loose idea of "emergent phenomena" to "guide me" on this winding road

this is the kind of thing truly making computer science into a science.

with all this "deep" learning technology, understanding based on principles is no longer required, heck, such 'epistemic-attitude' (i.e. knowledge founded on principles) is on the verge of becoming a burden to be shed out.

why reason what happens with the pixels/singals? why try to reason out what Photoshop is doing in reverse direction?

why bother with all this difficult trial-and-error cognitive work if you can throw "data" and "compute" at let the "algorithm" do the "thinking" (figure out the "model").

so instead of doing computer engineering like we used to do math, now we simply measure the outcomes without really having a theory (and the worrying part) nor bothering to make one; like physics! or chemistry!! just consider modern 'pharmaceutic' research i.e. letting the models duke it out

under this logic, a sack of lead ought to 'rule over' a living animal because of being heavier

I have not ever studied POSIX academically (curricularly) but:

> a small set of minimalistic APIs that remain stable over time

but from what I've gathered (over years, by 'osmosis'). Isn't this the essential idea behind POSIX?

this is what I've found to be most troubling around this whole debacle:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10345

how can it be in any way 'scientific' to base results on unpublished material??

> The analytic results we accept as true are partially unpublished, and the people who did the original calculation are long dead.

this ain't science, it's (American) imperialism applied through the cultural-institution of academia.

you're essentially passing the ball to the mathematicians:

seems like you're saying "we physicist got this from the math people, take it up with them"

but what irks me, is the attitude that disregards the proper understanding of things which you are making use of (in this sentence: 'you' is a informally defined: 'physicists from community')

it's hard to stay positive when people used 'credential-based' reasoning to disregard your questioning/criticism; this is very standard in academia.

and it's not like you can say "let's see who does better in the real products marketplace" with many of these research things (over 20 years before viable commercialization, if ever).