Some people just emigrate without lack of economic opportunity or social conditions. I have a German friend living in Japan because he's curious about Japan (he previously lived in the UK).
1,779 karma · joined February 24, 2014
My problem is that it still relies on some mathematical intuition - that large sample sizes approximate the true distribution. Similarly bad intuition (like the gambler's fallacy) could easily be coded.
I agree that formally calculating the probabilities isn't necessary if you have the right intuition. But I believe getting good intuition is the result of training on problems (and then you can learn how to formalise it - which is the easier part).
Edit: Being good at mental arithmetic isn't necessary for programming, but being good at mental arithmetic isn't necessary for working as a mathematician either.
We had blood test done (on the doctor's recommendation), and luckily there is no sign of any damage, but prescription errors do happen (even if they are rare) and it's much easier with liquids (you probably wouldn't give 8 pills to a baby, but 8ml doesn't seem so bad).
a) AI is a bubble
b) It's about to burst
This is based on a study that "just 5pc of integrated AI pilots are extracting millions in value, while the vast majority remain stuck with no measurable P&L [profit and loss] impact".
I think the conclusions (while possibly true) are not supported here. By comparison, in the stock market in general, just a handful of stocks provide most of the returns over the past few decades. This does not mean the stock market is a bubble or about to burst.
Platus lived 254 – 184 BC. Sundials are from 1500BC. While it's a great quote, it certainly wasn't a new invention when he wrote it.
1) For pedagogical or explanatory purposes. For example, if I were to write:
> ∀x∈R,x^2≥0
I've used 10 characters to say
> For every real number x, it's square is greater than or equal to zero
For a mathematician, the first is sufficient. For someone learning, the second might be better (and perhaps as expansion of 'real number' or that 'square' is 'multiplying it by itself').
2) To make sure everything is stated and explicit. "He finally did x" implies that something has been anticipated/worked on for awhile, but "after a period of anticipation he did x" makes it more clear. This also raises the question of who was anticipating, which could be made explicit too.
As someone who spends a lot of time converting specifications to code (and explaining technical problems to non-technical people), unstated assumptions are very prevalent. And then sometimes people have different conceptions of the unstated assumption (i.e. some people might think that nobody was anticipating, it just took longer than you'd expect otherwise).
So longer text might seem like a simple expansion, but then it ends up adding detail.
I definitely agree with the authors point, I just want to argue that having a text-expander tool isn't quite as useless as 'generate garbage for me'.
I've seen a lot more ai-generated art than ai-generated science.
> We introduce phi-1, a new large language model for code, with significantly smaller size than competing models: phi-1 is a Transformer-based model with 1.3B parameters, trained for 4 days on 8 A100s, using a selection of ``textbook quality" data from the web (6B tokens) and synthetically generated textbooks and exercises with GPT-3.5 (1B tokens). Despite this small scale, phi-1 attains pass@1 accuracy 50.6% on HumanEval and 55.5% on MBPP. It also displays surprising emergent properties compared to phi-1-base, our model before our finetuning stage on a dataset of coding exercises, and phi-1-small, a smaller model with 350M parameters trained with the same pipeline as phi-1 that still achieves 45% on HumanEval
We train on the internet because, for example, I speak a fairly niche English dialect influenced by Hebrew, Yiddish and Aramaic, and there are no digitised textbooks or dictionaries that cover this language. I assume the base weights of models are still using high quality materials.
I'm confused - I purchase a new leather wallet from a department store (a UK one that has a reputation for quality) about once every ten years. How old are your wallets? Or how quickly did your other wallets wear out?
They focused a lot on UX. For example, they avoid dropdowns - "the select component should only be used as a last resort in public-facing services because research shows that some users find selects very difficult to use." [Source](https://design-system.service.gov.uk/components/select/).
It's worth reading their design principles: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/government-design-principles
(There was a reason for this - the field was used elsewhere within a PowerBI model, and the clinicians couldn't get their heads around True/False, PowerBI doesn't have an easy way to map True/False values to strings, so we used 'Clinical/Non-Clinical' as string values).
I am reluctant to share the code example, because I'm preciously guarding an example of an LLM making an error in the hope that I'll be able to benchmark models using this, however here's the powerquery code (which you can put into excel) - ask an LLM to explain the code/predict what the output will look like, and compare it with what you get in excel.
let
MyTable = #table(
{"Foo"},
{
{"ABC"},
{"BCD"},
{"CDE"}
}
),
AddedCustom = Table.AddColumn(
MyTable,
"B",
each if Text.StartsWith([Foo], "LIAS") or Text.StartsWith([Foo], "B")
then "B"
else "NotB"
),
SortedRows = Table.Sort(
AddedCustom,
{{"B", Order.Descending}}
)
SortedRows
The specification was to only look at clinical appointments, and find the most recent appointment. However if the patient didn't have a clinical appointment, it was supposed to find the most recent appointment of any sort.
I wrote the code by sorting the data (first by clinical-non-clinical and then by date). I asked chatgpt to document it. It misunderstood the code and got the sorting backwards.
I was pretty surprised, and after testing with foo-bar examples eventually realised that I had called the clinical-non-clinical column "Clinical", which confused the LLM.
This is the kind of mistake that is a lot worse than "code doesn't run" - being seemingly right but wrong is much worse than being obviously wrong.
I'm not qualified to analyse this, I read into it a bit more and apparently he was trying to complicate the game, the 1973 tournament book only marks it as ?!.
This is the kind of blunder that you'd expect from a strong club player, not from Bobby Fischer. Although I understand that Fischer was brilliant but inconsistent, and to be fair, the last chess championship matches had a share of blunders.
Fischer lived in New York, and therefore could play in the Manhattan Chess Club.
During WW2, the British cracked the German codes. They would create pretexts for "discovering" where German ships would be, so that the Germans wouldn't suspect that they cracked their codes.
It's impossible for us to know if the US government have cracked Tor, because the world would look identical to us whether they had or hadn't. If the only evidence they have is via Tor, and the individual is a small fry, they will prefer they get away with it rather than let people know that Tor has been cracked.
I just assume the NSA are spending their budgets on something, although maybe it is stuff like side channel attacks.