kevinwang

No, each edge in the graph has 2 states. There are 15 edges between the 6 people.

The only good tools I've ever used are typescript and tqdm (a python progress bar).

Wandb and React can get honorable mentions.

> Yes, 千字文 is not common in mainland China at all. I was born and raised in mainland China, and have no memory of the content of 千字文 other than the title.

But the original content is talking about the past, not the modern era.

Well we're social but we're not really eusocial like they are

I like that analysis! What were your classmates' critiques?

> Similar thing happened with the NBA, now everyone chases the 3-point shoots and in so doing whatever it is that had made the NBA one of the best sports shows in the world is losing its shine. In this day and age Jordan would be seen just as a gimmicky player.

No part of this is true or even really makes sense.

Another suitable maxim here is "We shape our tools and then our tools shape us"

(2020)

edit: i meant to say "used the book for chat finetuning/rlhf but not the original llm". Also, I saw one example of the regurgitation by openAI of a NYT article, and it was indeed GPT-4, not ChatGPT.

Wow, that's amazing. I wonder if attacker like this feel unappreciated since they can't take credit for their work.

That makes sense, but it feels to me like the more educated and higher-income young adults are the ones delaying kids / choosing not to have kids. It feels like lower-income young adults are more likely to start families.

Hm... Why would people not just paste in sections of the book to the "raw" model in the playground (gpt instead of chatgpt) and just see if it completes the text correctly? Is the concern that chatgpt may have used the book for training data but not the original llm?

I looked at a bunch of the ideas, they were all pretty good!

Interesting. I hope that means the web UI will continue to work if one chooses to enable cloud storage

I've been making a CLI for advent of code ( https://adventofcode.com/ ) this week: https://github.com/VitamintK/wang-aoc-cli

It's been satisfying!

Read it again :)

Wow, these examples are amazing

Apparently a few years: https://x.com/XenaProject/status/1712488019016515662?s=20

No, n^2+1 is an open problem (conjectured to be impossible though)

Wow, I had no idea the fees were so high

Nice, I literally just started to build something similar on a waveshare and raspi!

Cool! Would be nice to be able to design fonts for different sizes too!

From the description, this sounds different than what the parent was talking about

definitely the social points for me -- shoulder surfing / pair programming in both directions (me learning things by watching others, and others teaching me commands while watching me)

Hm... Do you agree, though, that the bet is a good one if you can wager a size of your choice instead of your entire bankroll?

Either wager (+50%/-40% or +50%/-33%) would be profitable wagers for a gambler in a casino to take. If you ever found a casino offering bets like that, you would never have to work again (unless they sued and won against you to get their money back). No casino would ever knowingly offer a wager with negative expected value for them.

> You're right in saying that 2/3 and 3/2 are the right numbers to ensure that the population wealth stays the same.

Quick correction:

The article uses 0.6 and 1.5. In this setting, the population wealth increases and the wealth of almost any individual decreases.

In the comment you replied to, they propose 0.66 and 1.5. In this setting, the population wealth doesn't stay the same, it increases even more than before.

(In order for population wealth to stay the same, the payoffs should be 0.5 and 1.5)

I think my explanation is more intuitive than every other comment so far.

An intuition is that log(wealth) represents utility. An intuition for why log(wealth) represents utility is that wealth has decreasing marginal returns. The logarithm is a function that fits this. If you play around with it a bit you might see that it conforms to your intuitions: increasing your net worth from $100k to $200k increases your utility significantly, maybe about as much as increasing your net worth from $1m to $2m, and much more than increasing your net worth from $1m to $1.1m.

> If the loser got 0.6666c instead of 0.6c, and the winner got $1.50, then over time you'd break even, on average.

For what definition of "average"? Yes, the most likely outcome would be to break even. But if we mean "expected value" when we say average, then on average, that repeated wager would be massively profitable for us (in terms of wealth). Maybe a better way to view it is that it would be massively unprofitable for the casino offering it (this is more straightforward since the casino's outcomes are more ergodic than the individual's).

---

Maybe a more clarifying discussion would be: what if you could accept these wagers (let's say 0.6x and 1.5x) if you can use a bet amount of your choice each time? That is, you don't have to wager your entire life savings, but you could choose to make the bet with $1, with the outcomes being $0.60 and $1.50.

Then, this wager is clearly a free money machine, right? We can come to the conclusion that it is a free money machine by looking at its expected value. That's why I disagree that "you lose more than you gain" and I disagree that "this is purely a result of the distribution of returns from a single toss".

---

I guess I should concede that I agree with your reasoning, if we make the reasonable assumption that utility is the logarithm of wealth. In that case, I agree that I would be indifferent to taking a 0.666 and 1.5 bet for my entire networth, and that I would not take a 0.6 and 1.5 bet for my entire networth. However, I still contend that we can analyze the value of these wagers using expected value -- we simply look at the expected value of what we actually care about (utility), not wealth.

> Your stake should grow or shrink by the same factor if you win or lose.

> If you lose, it should then be divided by 1.5 (multiplied by 0.66..).

In what sense "should" this be true?