HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

rramadass

5,786 karma · joined December 4, 2018

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rramadass

===== The Problem: Realism vs. Idealism =====

“Do you know, I sometimes catch myself wishing that I, too, were blind to the facts of life and only knew its fancies and illusions. They’re wrong, all wrong, of course, and contrary to reason; but in the face of them my reason tells me, wrong and most wrong, that to dream and live illusions gives greater delight. And after all, delight is the wage for living. Without delight, living is a worthless act. To labour at living and be unpaid is worse than to be dead. He who delights the most lives the most, and your dreams and unrealities are less disturbing to you and more gratifying than are my facts to me.”

He shook his head slowly, pondering.

“I often doubt, I often doubt, the worthwhileness of reason. Dreams must be more substantial and satisfying. Emotional delight is more filling and lasting than intellectual delight; and, besides, you pay for your moments of intellectual delight by having the blues. Emotional delight is followed by no more than jaded senses which speedily recuperate. I envy you, I envy you.”

He stopped abruptly, and then on his lips formed one of his strange quizzical smiles, as he added:

“It’s from my brain I envy you, take notice, and not from my heart. My reason dictates it. The envy is an intellectual product. I am like a sober man looking upon drunken men, and, greatly weary, wishing he, too, were drunk.”

“Or like a wise man looking upon fools and wishing he, too, were a fool,” I laughed.

“Quite so,” he said. “You are a blessed, bankrupt pair of fools. You have no facts in your pocketbook.”

“Yet we spend as freely as you,” was Maud Brewster’s contribution.

“More freely, because it costs you nothing.”

“And because we draw upon eternity,” she retorted.

“Whether you do or think you do, it’s the same thing. You spend what you haven’t got, and in return you get greater value from spending what you haven’t got than I get from spending what I have got, and what I have sweated to get.”

-- Wolf Larsen from The Sea-Wolf by Jack London.

===== The Solution: Egoless engagement with every moment =====

One should become aware of one’s deluded notion in which one thinks that "I belong to these objects of the world and my life depends upon them. I cannot live without them and they cannot exist without me, either" [here objects can be anything that the mind latches onto i.e. animate/inanimate/thoughts/memories/etc.]. Then by profound enquiry, one contemplates "I do not belong to these objects, nor do these objects belong to me" [i.e. the difference between the experiencer, the object experienced and the experience itself]. Thus abandoning the ego-sense through intense contemplation, one should playfully engage oneself in the [everyday] actions that happen naturally [whether due to environment or self-initiated], but with the heart and mind ever cool and tranquil. Such an abandonment of the ego-sense and the conditioning is known as the contemplative egolessness.

Live in the present, with your consciousness externalized momentarily [i.e. egolessly immersed in the current activity for however short/long a time period] but without any effort [i.e. without fixating on the outcome]; when the mind stops linking itself to the past and to the future, it becomes no-­mind. If from moment to moment your mind dwells [only] on what is [currently being done] and drops it effortlessly at once [when it is done but before moving on to something else], the mind becomes no-­mind, full of purity.

They who, though remaining established in equilibrium, do not let their organs function naturally as long as the body is alive, are obstinate and stubborn people. As long as there is sesame there is oil; as long as there is the body, there are the different moods also. He who rebels against the states that the body is naturally subject to, cuts space to pieces with a sword [i.e. a futile and foolish endeavour]. The equilibrium of yoga is for the mind, not for the organs of action and their states. As long as the body lasts, one should let the organs of action perform their proper function [naturally; without desire/intent/volition], though the intellect and the senses remain in a state of equanimity. Such is the law of nature, to which even the gods are subject.

-- The Yoga Vasistha translated by Swami Venkatesananda.

=====

submissionscomments
rramadass··on Ask HN: What are you reading?
I was recommended Liqun Luo's book by user periheli0n here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28743804 But since it is somewhat advanced for a beginner in neuroscience like me, i pair it with Neurobiology: A Functional Approach by Georg Striedter for better understanding. I also find reading pop-sci books on Neuroscience/Brain a good supplement since these give a nice top-level overview (and thus stimulate motivation) before diving into the details in a textbook. Two i have found useful are The Accidental Mind by David Linden and Mapping the Mind by Rita Carter.

You can get pdfs of the Handbook of Unconventional Computing if you ask Google and/or Anna ;-)

One more book that i hope to get my hands-on is Peter Kogge's *The Zen of Exotic Computing" - https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/1.9781611977295 This seems like a nice overview (plus more) of most of the stuff from the above Handbook. Also checkout the wikipedia link for original papers/books/etc. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_computing

rramadass
·
·on Ask HN: What are you reading?
Nice. I too have an interest in "unconventional computing" (analog/quantum/biological etc.) since i think that we are reaching the limits of conventional Von Neumann architectures and discrete mathematics in terms of efficiency, power consumption etc. Nature is analog and continuous with efficient energy consumption and while we have come very far by imposing discrete and boolean algebra on it, it is inherently only an approximation. Note also that at the quantum level nature is both continuous and discrete i.e. wave/particle duality and we again have a need to model continuous wave-like characteristics.

A few books that i am currently looking at which you might also find useful;

1) Principles of Neurobiology by Liqun Luo - Uses an integrated approach to neuroscience.

2) Handbook Of Unconventional Computing in 2-vols (Vol1-Theory, Vol2- Implementations) - A comprehensive resource.

rramadass··on Foundations of Large Language Models
Quite good to understand the theory behind LLMs. Latest version always seems to be at arxiv.

Also read the excellent Introduction to Large Language Models by Tanmoy Chakraborty - https://tanmoychak.com/llmbook/

rramadass··on Proof and Progress in Mathematics (1994)
Very pertinent given the current "AI misalignment" with Mathematics.

Be sure to also read Jaffe and Quinn's ``Theoretical mathematics'': Toward a cultural synthesis of mathematics and theoretical physics referred to in the paper - https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9307227

Also see this for responses from other Great Mathematicians; Responses to ``Theoretical Mathematics: Toward a cultural synthesis of mathematics and theoretical physics'', by A. Jaffe and F. Quinn - https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9404229

rramadass··on Random Reality (2000)
Better font for reading at Archive link since New Scientist is paywalled - https://archive.is/28euj
rramadass··on The Secret Life of Circuits
Ha, Ha, True.

That was a silly statement by the author; just say that this is "less theoretical" and not a textbook.

Looked at the contents/sample chapter and it seems just like many of the books published by make magazine.

rramadass··on The Secret Life of Circuits
Also as a person who came to Embedded/Electronics from the Software side, i found the following incredibly useful to bridge the software-hardware gap using MCUs;

1) Introduction to Embedded Systems: Using Microcontrollers and the MSP430 by Manuel Jiménez, Rogelio Palomera, Isidoro Couvertier - https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-3143-5

This has more of a hardware interfacing slant than most books on embedded systems which is what a software person needs. Every topic is first introduced in a general way with lots of illustrations and then its application in MSP430 is shown. Hence we can easily transfer our understanding to any other MCU family. A really good textbook for serious students of embedded electronics.

rramadass··on The Secret Life of Circuits
Make: has a 3-vol series Encyclopedia of Electronic Components one of which is on Sensors - https://www.makershed.com/collections/books-on-electronics/p...

Also see Sensors and Signal Conditioning by Ramon Pallas-Areny and John Webster for a theoretical combination treatment.

rramadass··on Align AI and Mathematics–To Something Else
The letter is just a call to action reminding everyone how Mathematics is done and how Mathematicians operate within their domain with all the Human factors involved.

But because of the bad behaviour (plagiarism, going-behind-the-back etc.) and incentives misalignment, AI companies are currently not aligned with that.

There is also the structural problem of generating proofs at a rapid pace just because you can but then have no way for "proof digestion" which is the key in the mathematical process. See Terence Tao's writings - https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/ai-views.html

rramadass··on The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics by Paul Dirac (1939)
This is just meaningless twaddle.

Read the chapter on "Chance" in Poincare's "Science and Method" linked to here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49743377

Randomness/Chance itself is amenable to laws by which we can estimate its bounds. In one sense everything is chance since the deterministic laws themselves operate within approximation bounds. When the approximation bound in the effect is similar in magnitude to that in the cause and both are very small, we call it "deterministic" whereas when the approximation bound in the effect is much larger than that in the cause for no discernible reason we say "chance" is operating.

rramadass··on The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics by Paul Dirac (1939)
Read my other comment here first which answers your first part - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49738762

> Thorough worshipping of Math and “Mathers”, like as if they are a gift from God

"There is no God and Dirac is his Prophet" -- Wolfgang Pauli.

> Again, let’s stick with Hume, you’re the shit until you’re not.

BS. Hume's ideas of Mathematics and their usage in Science were laughable (they predated modern mathematics and physics). The mathematics used in a theory has tremendous predictive power and does not depend on "miracles". So we know where it works and where it does not.

> Einstein went to death not understanding Physics as he wanted to.

No, that is not quite true. Einstein perfectly understood quantum physics/mechanics but considered it incomplete and philosophically abhorrent.

> God loves that essay Hume wrote, truly. It’s all fun and games until God mindfucks your understanding.

Nonsense.

rramadass··on The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics by Paul Dirac (1939)
In case you haven't read it; see "Science and Method by Henri Poincare" - https://archive.org/details/sciencemethod00poinuoft

Here is a summary - https://thetelos.org/science-and-method-science-et-methode-h...

Here is a video discussion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ-t8-igDZo

The thesis is that Science is made for efficiency and hence does not include everything (which is infinite). It only looks for a hierarchy of interesting facts and focuses on simple foundational recurring phenomena from nature. It then uses the language of Mathematics to economize and impose order on the complexity to make it tractable.

Finally, our subconscious prefers aesthetic attributes and hence we often find/create harmony/symmetry/beauty in our mathematical products.

rramadass··on The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics by Paul Dirac (1939)
Quite independently of the Mathematics, Bohm's ideas of "Implicate and Explicate Order" are very interesting and comprehensible by the layman at a high-level - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

In particular, students of Hindu Philosophical Schools will find lots of parallels here. Bohm was heavily influenced by Jiddu Krishnamurti which inspired his take on quantum theory.

Bohm also wrote a great book, "Quantum Theory" based on the Copenhagen Interpretation which contains separate parts on "Physical Formulation" and "Mathematical Formulation" of quantum theory.

rramadass··on The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics by Paul Dirac (1939)
Right. Added the wikipedia link to Dirac's LNH above.

Also found this; The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations - https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340

rramadass··on The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics by Paul Dirac (1939)
Later down in the essay, Dirac himself answers this;

With this kind of cosmological picture one is led to suppose that there was a beginning of time, and that it is meaningless to inquire into what happened before then. One can get a rough idea of the geometrical relationships this involves by imagining the present to be the surface of a sphere, going into the past to be going in towards the centre of the sphere, and going into the future to be going outwards. There is then no limit to how far one may go into the future, but there is a limit to how far one can go into the past, corresponding to when one has reached the centre of the sphere. The beginning of time provides a natural origin from which to measure the time of any event. The result is usually called the epoch of that event. Thus the present epoch is 2 x 109 years [actually 2x10^9].

One further point in connection with the new cosmology is worthy of note. At the beginning of time the laws of Nature were probably very different from what they are now. Thus we should consider the laws of Nature as continually changing with the epoch, instead of as holding uniformly throughout space-time. This idea was first put forward by Milne, who worked it out on the assumptions that the universe at a given epoch is roughly everywhere uniform and spherically symmetrical. I find these assumptions not very satisfying, because the local departures from uniformity are so great and are of such essential importance for our world of life that it seems unlikely there should be a principle of uniformity overlying them. Further, as we already have the laws of Nature depending on the epoch, we should expect them also to depend on position in space, in order to preserve the beautiful idea of the theory of relativity there is fundamental similarity between space and time. This goes more drastically against Milne's assumptions than a mere lack of uniformity in the distribution of matter.

Show respect to Mathematicians/Physicists/etc. many of whom had studied Philosophy and i dare say had a better understanding/insight of it than mere academic Philosophers. Why? Because they don't go off into la-la land but try very hard to have both observed evidence and a mathematical model of it match cleanly via a Theory.

For your edification, read first "Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes" followed by "Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg".

rramadass··on The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics by Paul Dirac (1939)
Just to clarify; The term "2 x 109" is actually "2 x 10^9" or 2 billion years which was considered the present epoch i.e. accepted age of the universe at that time.

Dirac large numbers hypothesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis

rramadass··on The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics by Paul Dirac
Related;

From Heisenberg to Goedel via Chaitin - https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402197

rramadass··on How do we prevent mathemathics from devolving into the Medieval Era of secrecy?
> Regardless of the true cost, it seems that professional mathematicians now need to wary about what they put into a LLM and think hard about how to disclose and publish a result.

This is all but guaranteed now.

Mathematicians/Scientists/Researchers need to stop sharing freely with "AI Companies" and have explicit clauses in place in their publications about not using their research without their explicit consent.

There should be a clear legal distinction between using research data for AI model-training vs. another researcher using it.

Come up with a legal framework, establish procedures for sharing and using others work and have a single scientific body in charge of enforcing it.

rramadass··on Paul A. M. Dirac, Interview by Friedrich Hund (1982) [video]
"There is no God and Dirac is his Prophet".

-- Wolfgang Pauli.

rramadass··on Align AI and Mathematics–To Something Else
> There's never been such a consideration that one should not work on a problem that someone else is working on or has worked on.

That is not what i meant at all. This is your erroneous take.

In any scientific community when people work on the same problems, if they are aware of the others work, they usually cooperate/share their findings especially if the problem is a long-standing nobel-prize/fields-medal worthy one. If one builds their approach based on others then there definitely is a citation/reference acknowledging others contributions.

This is the ethical accepted practice since the dawn of the scientific age because "standing on the shoulders of giants" and building from there is how science advances.

rramadass··on Align AI and Mathematics–To Something Else
Nope, you need to engage in a root-cause conversation which is the key here. Just focusing on the words in a letter which as i already pointed out is couched in politically-correct terms due to etiquette is meaningless. There is a lot unsaid there which you have to tease-out by reading between the lines. It was written in response to OpenAI's behaviour (Tristan Buckmaster himself called what they did as "malpractice" in one of his tweets) but looking at the larger picture of AI in Mathematics. The key phrase from the letter is;

... Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others. As in all creative professions, this raises severe attribution and plagiarism questions. ...

The inference should be clear.

Hence we need to start with the underlying psychological motivations and then see how it explains observed behaviour. And it is not even complicated but somewhat obvious. The fact that you (many others) refuse to address this is why i question your (and theirs) motivations/agenda.

As regards your last few lines regarding "calling names" they are all only w.r.t. to the issues being discussed and are just rhetorical/descriptive judgements on your comments.

rramadass··on Suchir Balaji's Homepage
Suchir Balaji - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji

... who was found dead one month after accusing OpenAI, his former employer, of violating United States copyright law. His death drew widespread attention because of his purported whistleblower status and claims of foul play made by his parents and others ...

rramadass··on Let's make quality the norm again
This looks quite interesting; thanks for sharing.

A related concept is Jugaad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugaad Often interpreted as "good enough" with no connection to Quality at all. Even when the context/environment changes to afford better quality (both manufacturing and cost) quality is never pursued unless mandated by National/ISO standards etc.

One way to maybe understand this is through Robert Axelrod's books; The Evolution of Cooperation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation and The Complexity of Cooperation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complexity_of_Cooperation

But the actors are never fully rational, there is always a clique which manipulates/influences and therefore there is never a "fair" market. Human motivations and behaviour are always the key and so you need Behavioral Game Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_game_theory (see book of the same name by Colin Camerer)

Finally, Nassim Taleb's ideas are also very relevant here. Markets work on "Trial and Error" and "Chance", there is no "fair/efficient invisible guiding hand" but only a guiding hand by cliques which have no "skin in the game" when it comes to downsides and "asymmetric risk" benefiting corporate capitalism. But the system as a whole functions because it is somewhat "Antifragile" i.e. the chaotic interactions and successes/failures within the system somehow strengthens the whole.

rramadass··on Align AI and Mathematics–To Something Else
This is just making up stuff, setting up strawmen and knocking them down by oneself which is meaningless. There is nothing much to infer from the above verbiage other than "living in you own fantasy".

My other comment is relevant here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49710169

To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, the real issue is;

AI companies are stealing our hard-won lifelong research findings, which we were already sharing freely, without attribution/credit and building upon them without informed consent nor compensation.

The AI companies behaviour is the problem, not the technology itself.

Ironically, by engaging in these sort of shenanigans, OpenAI is effectively killing the "Goose that laid the Golden Eggs". viz. Researchers were giving away their hard-earned highly specialized knowledge freely to the models in the hope that it will help them get quicker to the result. But now everybody is going to lockdown their research findings and will stop sharing it with the models to the overall detriment of advancement of Science.

rramadass··on Align AI and Mathematics–To Something Else
What part of "It is called common decency/etiquette, having ethics/morals and not plagiarising/stealing others work" don't you understand?

It is the accepted way to use each other's works in the scientific community. That is why citations/references/bibliographies exist.

rramadass··on Align AI and Mathematics–To Something Else
Hmm...;

I had imagined i was interacting with somebody who could understand the larger picture given only the key points. Apparently that was wrong and i need to spell out every detail.

I didn't call you names but implied that you had an agenda and were masking it by trying to debate the literal words in the original communique from 25 fields medalists which was written to be politically correct. Apparently asking you to "focus on the spirit and not the letter" of the communique was too much. So i highlighted it, repeated myself three/four times and yet nothing seems to have worked to aid comprehension.

I point to a most important and relevant psychological theory viz. SDT, which explains how one's behaviour is influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and ask you to think about how they might explain why the mathematicians are angry at the current situation of AI companies shafting them. I even used specific terminology from SDT to highlight its applicability in this case. Apparently this is too much "home work" (and needed thinking) and one needs to spoon-feed everything without assuming any human intelligence/curiosity/initiative at the other end.

It seems my attempt to show the larger context and situate it in actual psychological research has been of no avail though not for want of trying.

rramadass··on Align AI and Mathematics–To Something Else
You do with leading edge research problem approaches; particularly if you plan to throw millions of dollars worth of resources to brute-force a solution which a normal researcher (who has actually done part of the hard work over a long period of time) cannot afford.

It is called common decency/etiquette, having ethics/morals and not plagiarising/stealing others work.

rramadass··on Align AI and Mathematics–To Something Else
The point viz. understanding intrinsic/extrinsic motivations and how they shape one's behaviour (i.e. SDT) is a nuanced one and so i wanted you to get an overview of it and then see for yourself how applicable it is to the OpenAI/Mathematicians Navier-Stokes issue.

Also see my other comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695418

I suggest you go through the SDT wikipedia entry and note in particular how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are internalised and integrated into a coherent sense of self. This is true for all humans and worth a study to understand what motivates us to do what we do.

To repeat myself from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49680925 "the AI companies behaviour, threatens everybody's Autonomy, nullifies their Mastery/Competence and robs them of Purpose/Relatedness/Belongingness. Nobody should accept this."

Mathematicians will keep doing research with or without AI. But so far they have been doing it in a free environment where there were unsaid-rules/ethics/morals being followed; the most central of which is "do not steal my work; if you use my work give me credit and compensation (if you make money off of it)". This takes care of both one's intrinsic and extrinsic motivation needs which is why all of our scientific practices, societal/economic rules etc. are setup on a system of incentives appropriate to their domain eg. for a researcher doing something original and winning the Nobel Prize/Fields Medal is far more important than making money while for a Business CEO making money is everything.

In the case of Navier-Stokes problem, Name and Fame were everything and Money was a lesser goal. OpenAI with their despicable behaviour have robbed the mathematicians off the above by going behind their backs, without giving them credit and simply throwing a huge amount of resources at the problem. This should not be tolerated.

rramadass··on Align AI and Mathematics–To Something Else
You have conveniently left out the spirit of the mathematicians communique and are only trying to argue its letter which is what makes me think you are being disingenuously clueless or cluelessly disingenuous.

To repeat myself again, the crux of the problem is;

AI companies are stealing our hard-won lifelong research findings, which we were already sharing freely, without attribution/credit and building upon them without informed consent nor compensation.

The AI companies are robbing the mathematicians by not involving them in major decisions about solving the leading/promising research problems in their domain. They are the ones who have identified the problems, its importance, promising approaches of attack etc. which have all been freely shared and which the AI companies have used to build their models.

For example, in the Navier-Stokes case, OpenAI could have easily informed the mathematicians like so, "hey, your research approach looks promising, do you have any objections to us using your research in our models and throwing a lot of compute resources at it so that we can finally solve it?" Every mathematician would have jumped at the chance since that is what he was doing anyway but at a small scale and far slower pace.

Instead OpenAI went behind the mathematicians back while building upon his and others work without attribution/credit nor compensation. This is plagiarism, cheating and despicable behaviour and should not be tolerated by anybody.

rramadass··on Why is the x86 undefined instruction called ud2? Why 2?
Couldn't find UDW in the intel docs - https://intel.github.io/SDM/sdm.html

But found it in wikipedia which is well structured and has detailed notes/comments on all instructions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_x86_instructions

There is also UD2A and UD2B which just seem to be synonyms for UD2 and UD1 respectively? Google tells me that they are legacy tool specific mnemonics used in older GNU GCC/Binutils.

Page 1 of 34Next →