V0ldek

joined 2 years ago
[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 2 points 1 month ago

Weinstein released his Geometric Unity paper on April 1, debuting it on Joe Rogan’s podcast

Okay, like, you could've just started with this, this Weinstein person is clearly an idiot and cannot be taken seriously

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 2 points 1 month ago

His Geometric Unity proposal, therefore, has all the hallmarks of an outsider attempting to revolutionize physics, casting him as an Einstein-like figure toiling alone at the patent office.

I hate this framing so fucking much, Einstein wasn't an "outsider"! He was known and respected! He talked to other prominent physicist all the time! Where does this myth even come from.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 3 points 1 month ago

Hey I'm not an artist or really familiar with film and I also could've told you this

It's not even that hard to grasp, ChatGPT is trained on all of human textual output it can be and it can't write a coherent story, Copilot is trained on all of open-source code in existence and it can't write a correct line of C++, obviously a film model is not gonna be any better

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 2 points 1 month ago

I've never heard of the Newcomb thing, this might be me applyng my CS brain where it doesn't work, but can someone tell me why a perfect predictor isn't immediately incoherent for analagous reasons for which a machine solving HALT is incoherent?

  1. Assume we can build a perfect predictor.
  2. One perfect predictor can predict the prediction of another perfect predictor (in particular, two perfect predictors predicting the outcome of the same experiment must give the same result)
  3. Setup an experiment as in the Newcomb's problem.
  4. Use a second predictor to predict what the predictor inside the experiment would've predicted.
  5. Choose the other option. Contradiction, perfect predictor mispredicted.

This doesn't assume free will and it works exactly the same even if the predictor is not perfect (it's enough that it predicts better than random chance).

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 6 points 1 month ago

I have no idea about Ruby or the politics behind the scenes, but I do know who DHH is and so it seems like literally none of this would've happened if not for point 2. on the list?? Just like, don't platform the rancid toxic cesspit of a man and you're fine??

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

God, we had so much fun doing this at my uni when creating an example DB table for an exam (only it was fake song/band combinations). Are you sure your coworker isn't a robot themselves?

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 1 points 2 months ago

I don't even understand why this is such a big contention, real and complex numbers are basically the same (equal cardinality sets), the reason we use C is because it makes math easier.

I reject the premise of the question, real numbers are fake anyway and complex numbers are equally as fake. We made both of those up. Just use the more ergonomic formalism bro.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Is there any place where I could find out wth this is but passed through a sneer filter already?

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 10 points 2 months ago (11 children)

In Eliezer’s “utopian” worldbuilding fiction concept, dath ilan

In Eliezer's sweet fucking what now?

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It was very much a Luddite movement that succeeded

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That's interesting, because in Poland 95% of all history you are taught is "and then they grabbed guns because they were just so fed up with their* shit" and from modern history it's mostly anti-commumist worker movements that were all about general strikes and loud, disruptive protests.

*Russians', Germans', Austrians', king's, ...

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 1 points 2 months ago

Quantum computers are in fact (believed to be) more powerful than classical digital TMs in terms of efficiency,

Importantly though, not crazily so. We know they can do factorisation quick, and we believe classical cannot. But we also believe they can't quickly solve NP-hard problems.

(In each instance, believe means it's not proven, but the implications of it being false would be so weird and surprising we think it's probably true and are trying to prove it so)

view more: ‹ prev next ›