306 karma · joined October 17, 2013
> If you provide a fake time provider in all those places
I'm looking for something more akin to https://go.dev/issue/67434 (i.e. testing the code that calls third-party libraries that might just call Thread.Sleep and so on)
http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_...?
And so... adding the random samples that include "I don't know" to the training datasets brings the accuracy on unknown questions from <10% to over 90%
And then the most advanced algorithms are usually just `git clone/cargo add/go get/npm install/your_other_pkg_mgr` away.
I'd say the standard library task is much more about providing powerful composable protocols to integrate all those libraries together (eg see Clojure, Elixir et al)
BTW its much faster and cheaper to artive at a good prompt if you sample the model in deterministic mode (ie temperature=0)
By default you have to guess if the difference is due to the prompt change or due to the dice roll, as you’ve noticed, but you don’t need to!
Or does that mean wait for 14.2?
1) I can readily imagine the _labs_ being contaminated by the reference samples.
2) If the compound is stable, not clumping and not hygroscopic - yes, certainly. “Microscopic” doesn’t do it justice, as there doesn’t seem to be any limit to how small the seed crystals can get.
Since we’re manufacturing literally tons of pharmaceuticals, and carefully manually spreading them over the Earth surface to the pharmacies, so for stable substances it doesn’t seem such an exaggregation to me.
so… not surprised. Still cool. What a time to be alive
2) Thanks for leading with an example of a negative result! That's what any researcher faces every day, unlike what gets published, after all
Caveat: no backprop :P forward-forward and other algorithms exist though
Document the intent.
Why did you decide to spend the time to write this code. What shortcuts were taken (what code doesn’t do!), and why!
Another direction: check digits/pronounce assists?
also completely ignores timing/traffic correlation attacks which are no longer theoretical anymore - and chattiness would likely make them more effective
1) why huge models are important (so the gradient is high-dimensional enough to be monotonic)
2) why attention (aka connections, aka indirections) is trainable at all;
and says nothing about why they might generalize the dataset