yobbo

> Has what students are expected to know changed since the 60s?

No, basic algebra and calculus has not changed.

Yann Lecun is "famous" for (besides being one of the fathers of "modern" AI) his opinion that transformers are inadequate and other directions should be explored.

Yes. It's like looking at the (Apollo) moon rocket launch and then suggesting teenagers should learn to build rockets in their garages for the coming space age.

It is viable as a toy project, but there are vanishingly few career opportunities.

For games in general, one measure of complexity is branching factor. It means average number of possible actions or states at each turn. It is knowable.

"Solvability" would mean number of turns to solve the game. It is known for some puzzles and can be found by brute force, otherwise you need to figure out a proof.

Stuff like this exists for bicycles. For mopeds and motorcycles there are electrification kits.

It should be possible to just replace the flywheel altogether with a generator/motor that both brakes and powers during each cycle, cancelling vibrations. Then more generation during deceleration, and more power during acceleration.

This (classic) argument is symmetric with respect to the value of money and quantity of goods. As in "if you know money will buy more in the future, it increases your incentive to sell now rather than wait for higher prices. And if you know prices will increase, you will hoard products." The argument doesn't favour either side.

One mechanism of inflation is that it effectively lowers wages (and other contracts) without negotiation. Asset prices are valued by markets and increase with inflation. It effectively transfers wealth from wage earners to capital owners.

Deflation would effectively increase wages instead, and require occasional renegotiations if productivity isn't keeping pace.

4) add taxes to effectively double price of gasoline

Normal use means loading data into the GPU for each batch. The load is not even, though training might be worse than "production".

Looks very nice, but I can't find numerical gradient checks, which is helpful when verifying that backward pass is correct:

https://github.com/markusheimerl/gpt/blob/main/transformer/a...

Testing was the annoying flood barrier. AI is the rainstorm that shows why it was necessary.

The point of automation is that it reduces the bargaining power of human workers, but they still have to trade their time and effort for wages. When automation improves, the wage proportion of the created value shrinks.

Housebuilding is motivated as much by need for housing as the prospect of increasing market value, "building equity" and so on. This prospect depends most strongly on location, which means the land price dominates the cost of construction.

> Sweden had nothing like this

Not entirely true. AstraZeneca and ABB are examples that remain partly Swedish but many companies were merged into big multinationals and eventually marginalised.

My understanding after scanning the code examples is the technique expands the dimensionality of each data point with a set consisting of the quadratic coefficients of its existing dimensions. I thought it sounded like kernel PCA.

If your goal is to translate Haskell (or other garbage collected code) pattern-for-pattern into Rust, you will almost certainly burn out.

> difficult or impossible in Rust were to me pretty basic patterns for modularity

Many things are plainly not permitted, either because the borrow-checker isn't clever enough, or the pattern is unsafe (without garbage collection and so on).

Many functional/Haskell patterns simply can not be translated directly to Rust.

The reason for exp(x) is that its derivative is exp(x), which makes it possible to express the gradient of s(x) in terms of s(x), or both in terms of exp(x). This simplifies the computation of backward pass.

In ancient times, slaves didn't revolt because they were oppressed by weapons and violence. Instead of paying workers, resources were used to pay and feed the military. Slaves were considered "war bounty" and tradeable goods.

When the incentives of workers favour burning buildings rather than working for wages, the next step is either to use force/control or to rebalance wages.

The point is rather that in a pure language, each io operation needs to be dependent on a sort of "world state" which is updated for each operation. They chose to implement this state as the io monad but there could have been other ways.

> I don't know if I agree with either assertion…

Yes, I don't think this matters. Much of "knowledge work" was always a proxy for something else.

High quality in terms of typos and errors is mainly a signal of respect in a similar way to wearing ironed white shirts with neck-ties. "Walls of text" that no one is expected to read in depth. Basically a symbolic demonstration of sacrifice and subservience (or something). LLMs remove this mode of signalling.

If quality of content wasn't examined before, it was probably never particularly important.

> this law will make phones _worse_ for most people

Not really. The battery just needs to have a connector rather than soldered, and no other things blocking the battery once the back-case is opened. Realistically, a service shop will do the replacement like how watch-batteries are typically replaced.

They are conditions to be met. It's not enough to proclaim them as "your process" and expect results.

When playing piano, the condition you are measured by is acoustic harmonies in the air, not finger movements. The only reasonable advice is either practice more or give up. If you are tone-deaf, it's not reasonable to expect you will learn to play the piano.

Deepmind was not a viable business at the time Google acquired it. Today, it is probably even less viable. It functions as R&D-lab for Google which has its own products and datacenters.

Start by shifting taxation from worker incomes to corporate incomes?

"What you do" seems more sympathetic than "who you are" and "who you know". American culture might be more meritocratic at a basic level.

"The only reason people disagree with me is because they are emotionally deficient."

> No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is.

I routinely close tabs when I sense that low-quality code is wasting time and resources, including e-commerce sites. Amazon randomly cancelled my account so I will never shop from them. I try to only buy computers and electronics with confirmed good drivers. Etc.

> We can assume they are doing so at a profit

This is false. We may assume it's the most efficient way of generating revenue given their GPUs, but their overall profitability will just be a guess. They would still have incentives to run hardware at maximum, even when it's uncertain to eventually recoup costs.

> a world where those API prices aren't profitable

A lab with employees and models in training has other costs than the operating expenses of a GPU farm.

> Isn't that how LLM models are trained right now

It's neither how computer chess works or how LLMs are trained.

Computer chess uses various tricks to prune the search space of board states, where the search is guided by the "value" of each board state. Neural networks can be used (and probably was at the time) to approximate this value, but there can be hand coded algorithms with learned statistics or even lookup tables for smaller games than chess.

There's no search in LLM training.

Or, are you using Gooby because debugging in the other language is painful and fraught?

Whereas Gooby "just works" once it compiles?

"Fun" for programmers means satisfaction and achievement in my experience.