resource0x

Playing the devil's advocate here. Suppose I use model A to do all heavy lifting (e.g. generating a bunch of good ideas) and then I go to the model B to complete the formalization. Accoring to a weird (unfair) tradition in math, the honors are attributed to the "last guy", which in this case is model B. That might have been a scenario OpenAI tried to avert. (Just a speculation)

> There are many of them on youtube.

Not as many as on HN. "Influencers" have agendas and the stream of income, or other self-interest. HN always comes off as a monolith, on any subject. Counter-arguments get ignored and downvoted to oblivion.

Dark matter is a pseudo-scientific variant of the "God of the gaps". Rather of acknowledging an obvious (default) assumption that the laws of Universe (including all "constants") depend on local conditions, the community prefers spending inordinate amounts of money on nebulous ideas.

Every time NVDA/goog/msft tanks, we see these kinds of articles.

Here's a comprehensive review of Turing's argument

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/#:~:text=The%...

(Spoiler: the issue is subtle :-))

Why did I assume someone has written an essay? Because he said so! Quoting:

> I do like his ideas (and I wrote similar things about platonic forms elsewhere)

What is dismissive about my interest to his write-up? (I'm sure it was a misunderstanding on your part, you don't need to apologize :-))

The ontological status of the equations is still unclear. BTW, if you can provide a link to your own essay, I would be interested :-)

But the equation is a platonic form! Otherwise, you will be introducing a third concept, which is unnecessary b/c it has no advantage over the traditional notion of "platonic form".

> It's an attractive framework, but as almost everything in philosophy it can easily be challenged.

Michael is aware of it. He insists that every speculation has to be experimentally tested. But no experiment of this kind will constitute a "proof" - someone can always "challenge" it. This is no different from a physical theory: every interpretation of QM is challenged by someone. :-)

Please read this essay and make your own conclusions. (He rejects physicalism in no uncertain terms). https://thoughtforms.life/platonic-space-where-cognitive-and...

By any chance, have you watched the videos from the recent conference? https://ctr4process.org/conference/metaphysics-and-the-matte...

This podcast will be a shocking experience for anyone who still holds reductionist views on life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8iFtaltX-s

Michael Levin's channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+levin+a...

His blog: https://thoughtforms.life/

In technology in general, this is a typical state of affairs. No one knows how electric current works, which doesn't stop anyone from using electric devices. In programming... it depends. You can run some simulation of a complex system no one understands (like the ecosystem, financial system) and get something interesting. Sometimes it agrees with reality, sometimes it doesn't. :-)

Please listen to the above pieces once a day (it will take only 4 minutes) for 10 days. Then, while speaking about music, you will sound pretensious to your friends. Please try. (I can send more. This will include jazz certainly. And Beatles... and others. You have to put some effort into it, it will pay off).

An impressive achievement indeed. That's exactly what one'd expect from LLM. If someone wants to see/hear what real music is, listen to this, just to get a reference point. This will make you cry. Literally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGaruN5VZPA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq3adNifZe8

Pursuing AGI? What method do they use to pursue something that no one knows what it is? They will keep saying they are pursuing AGI as long as there's a buyer for their BS.

breakthrough in biology

Very true. But the same applies to teaching. Mathematicians don't know where even to begin - for some of them, it's all too obvious. But the same happens with any subject. Someone proposes a certain design - but after many (20... 30... 40) years in business, you feel the design won't ever work, and try to explain, and fail because you don't know where to begin.

Not yet, but now I will, just out of curiosity. There's a problem with mathematicians teaching the subject. After all, the youtube lectures were also given by mathematicians. In attempt to make things "accessible", they de-emphasize the algebraic part of the subject and replace it with... I don't know what. The common theme is to consider only R^n. That's not what it's about. Maybe Math Academy course is different though.

As a math major, I scored a perfect 100 on my Linear Algebra exam in 1974. However, just two days later, I couldn't recall a single thing.

A few years ago, with ample free time, I decided to refresh my (nonexistent) memory by watching online linear algebra lectures from various professors. I was surprised by their poor quality. They lacked motivation and intuition. Khan Academy offered no improvement. Then, someone recommended Linear Algebra Done Right (LADR). I read it three times, and by the third iteration, I finally began to appreciate the beauty of the theory. Linear algebra is a purely algebraic theory; visual aids are of limited help. In short, if you have the time, I recommend reading LADR. Otherwise, don't bother.

Months? Well, only if you mean 120 months. The guy managed to destroy the best country in the world, leaving it with no foreseeable way back. Maybe joining the US is the only option now.

It's time for "How many programmers does it take to screw in a lightbulb using AI" jokes.

Does the same bullish logic apply to cold fusion?

The hype must go on :)

Java is much worse. You can learn embedded, but it's a different world and doesn't pay much.

I haven't seen 1000 cats in my entire life. I'm sure I learned how to tell a dog from a cat after being exposed to just a single instance of each.

We will know it was a bubble when it bursts. It might be followed by another AI bubble 20 years down the road. There's no contradiction between "technology trend" and periodic bubbles. Those who lose $$$ along the way may console themselves with thinking about technology trends. :-)

"We should stop training radiologists now. It's just completely obvious that within five years, deep learning is going to do better than radiologists"

G.Hinton, 2016

In mice.

I'm curious: if tomorrow someone discovers that some parts of the genome are encoded with RSA cryptography, will the argument of "mutations, time and selection pressure" still hold? The same handwaving applies :-)

And you want it to do what? Fill out your taxes? This is a one-trick pony by design. :-)