hashmap

> One could argue for pure mathematics that is of no practical utility

wait what is the math with no utility

Trustbusting should absolutely be included as well. One of the biggest immediate threats is the concentration of wealth into a very tiny number of companies.

god i love the eu regulators they're like the only ones even trying to look out for us

They do not disclose when the service is degraded, and the admission of that here seems like it would do a plaintiff's work for them.

> I'd be surprised if the approach is really something novel at this point. <

this is a very common reaction to people doing things with llms and i think the effects of it can be somewhat insidious. you constantly see people out there vibing their way to something that has already been discovered somewhere else, but they didn't know that and in many cases wouldn't have known how to find that thing even if they did.

the framing of "the llm tricked you into thinking you discovered something" while technically true in many cases, very strangely casts the positive outcome of a person being linked in a very engaged manner to something they wouldn't otherwise know or found out into something to be looked down on, and sort of just discourages people from trying stuff themselves that wouldn't be possible for them without something like an agent. it's okay if someone else already found the thing. for areas like science and research, it's actually a good thing if something you did repeated the work of someone else. it validates the original piece of work, and it tells you the things you were trying were on the right track to begin with.

3 months before asking for what to eat before a linear algebra exam trips the machine learning topic ban is my guess. I got flagged immediately asking why my JEPA thing breaks weird.

oh, it is worth hearing. said another way: "show me"

if for a second you believe that what apple says the regulators told them is the same thing as what the regulators told them, i have a cow farm under the titanic to sell you

For me it was probably around coding. It made me realize what future generations of models might be able to achieve, since we have already hit the ceiling of the class of intelligence these models are capable of a long time ago. I am excited at the prospect that a future generation of models might be able to write a piece of code that isn't dogshit.

You're getting it. There are mobs of attackers and mobs of defenders, but not mobs of explainers here.

i have had good results adding muse spark's contemplate mode as a roundtabler for complex questions. but you cant turn off their data ingestion for training so that is a shame.

large corporations moving doing things like datacenters drain significant resources, and resources cost money, which you then lose.

Most Marie Antoinette comment I've seen in a while. Startling.

whether or not you think anyone is owed anything for anything is a completely different topic. i'm talking about what is happening right in front of you, and everywhere.

i am correcting the description of what is going on. that is not hysteria and i am not a mob.

a classic moral panic would be videogames causing violence. what is happening is the beginning of something more akin to the luddite movement, and there is a chasm between them, and this has the potential to become far more widespread, and far more violent. it's not about the tech, it's about the economics.

whether or to what degree people in general are misinformed is a red herring. the forces driving it from underneath are far larger and are moving in very, very obvious ways, and dismissing them as just a moral panic is a head-in-sand move.

it's dangerous to refuse to understand whats happening broadly, and what's taking place in this thread, and to signal that it's ok to keep refusing to understand it.

the anger that's showing up around ai isn't a matter of the masses being misinformed, or the messaging around it, it's a matter of physics. you have this one thing that is being used as an excuse to lay people off en masse, you have tech ceos near daily saying they're gonna come for everyone else's job too, and you have the hyperscalers taking up every bit of oxygen in the room. not even gaming has been safe.

taking the attitude that it's "just such a classic moral panic" is figuring out which way the ocean is receding and running headlong toward it.

MCP will definitely not die. It works, it makes things easier for non-technical people, and is extremely inefficient. You can build an entire industry around that.

man what a great web site. the relevant stuff is right where you would look for it and it doesnt attack my attention with stupid internet mechanisms or otherwise do things i didnt tell it to do.

The RLHF very much does do that. My take is that RLHF as a mechanism ought to be avoided altogether, and even the selection of the assistant attractor basin is suspect. If I am exploring a problem space I don't want to hire Igor to explore it with me, it's more helpful to have a colleague role who will sort of jump out and say "nah thats dumb what if we throw out that whole thing and do this completely different angle instead".

It was extremely weird to do things like that as a policy, since it was systemic and natural for a user to just post a question and not find what it might be related to. You just put in an automation to link up / coalesce questions together if they have enough similarity and that would catch most of the things they'd turn around and berate people for and completely avoid this issue by a change in structure. Or like, anything else that would have solved it.

you can port anything python is doing with a couple prompts into rust/c++, including parity validation. when the barrier to migrating is that thin, you are losing money and time even continuing to talk about it. python is miserably slow, so dont let it touch any part of your system. no snakes in the house.

those are some nice thoughts but it doesn't seem to have worked out that way, or software would get more responsive, more legible, and less irritating over time. the opposite has been true for decades. user friendliness can be cracked open to increase revenue and those who do just the right amount of cracking win. right now a meme is the frustration is the product. failing as design means something different now than what it meant at like nasa in the 60s.

There are numbers in this post, but only in the technical sense.

My read of this is "the discussion of taxing wealth makes me anxious. i will do a tap dance, please become mired in watching / discussing my tap dance so that we can put off the inevitable and ultimately necessary a little longer"

To the "conversion rate": maybe, but who cares? The answer here is: apply the tax, see if we still have billionaires afterwards. If we do, then keep doing it.

> I have been stuck on problems that I figured out the next day. Many times. But that was when I was new to the topic, at the beginning of the course.

Maybe it has been a while since you have worked on something difficult, then? Difficult for you, I mean. Maybe the difficult things are now easy.

> If you need unlimited time to write the proof, then you haven’t studied the material yet, and should be expected to perform poorly on the exam.

I mean, maybe. I remember some classes and exams where I had simply never seen the topic before, and the problem relied on having picked up on metapatterns that weren't explicitly taught during the class and applying them in novel ways on the spot. Though my guess was that at least some of those problems were markers for "if you can one-shot this, we want to know".

> If you’re hiring and looking for someone with a minimum of 1 year of React experience then you shouldn’t expect the person to take a full day to do basic tasks with React.

If you're talking about the basics, then yeah I would agree. I guess I don't really know what counts as a synthesis problem in this context, and if we were looking at specific examples it would be more obvious why one might be fair and another might not be. I've heard that line about TAs being touted as being able to solve the tests in just a few minutes, yet somehow unsolvable problems fell through the cracks to the students in the same class more than once in mine.

Pointing to the interview process works against that argument rather than for it, and for the same reasons. Have you never been stuck on a problem at night and woken up with the answer? A good number of the really interesting problems I've solved got solved that way. Many of them felt like they either didn't have an answer or there's no way I was going to get it. Good thing there isn't a 2.5 hour timer following me around!

the googles of the world are real-life analogs of lovecraftian gods, spending sympathy or defense on them is a category error. they do not know about you nor care about you, and would be just as happy dissolving you in their path as not.

it depends on what you mean by fair, i think. is the purpose of the test to gauge how well a person performs on tests? the difficult problems i encounter in the real world involve collecting a bunch of context on it, sitting with it for a bit, then putting it down and going for a walk. when i come up with something to try it's usually when i am outside and looking at trees.

maybe this is good for weeding out students who would not be a good fit for high stakes speed math.