Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

galactica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 413 posts

Re: Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

#371

Post by orbifold »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #355
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed of sound in vacuum The speed of sound in vacuum is the speed of sound in a perfect vacuum. In a perfect vacuum, there are no molecules to support the propagation of sound, so sound cannot propagate through it. This speed is usually referred to as "the speed of sound" and is usually denoted by c, which is the standard notation for the speed of light. In fact, the speed of light is very close to the speed of soun…

> the speed of light is very close to the speed of sound in a perfect vacuum I am not knowledgeable in physics but this looked wrong to me until I reflected that in a near vacuum, the elasticity is very high and density nearer to zero. So per the equation of speed of sound, (square of ( elasticity / density ) ) is extremely high, so near the speed of light. Not so bad.

The reply to the prompt is almost complete non-sense. In particular the statements about the speed of sound in vacuum. However in some instances (synthetic quantum systems) you can treat the speed of sound in an ultra-cold gas as the „light-speed“ in a curved space-time. This was recently experimentally demonstrated.

I think in the future humans will need to invent secret languages, not digitized or shared with computers in order to be able to filter wrong but convincing information.

Re: Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

#372

Post by insanitybit »

pnt12 wrote: post #361
rat9988 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definition is too restrictive. Wether you choose to suscribe to this definition or not is a matter of opinion.

Open source is not a just a term with margin for interpretation: to be open source, you must comply with the 10 rules defined by the open source initiative. Restricting commercial usage goes against rule 6. You can call it readable source or whatever, but it's not open source as defined by OSI. "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a sp…

The reality is that the vast majority of software developers do not consider a strict conformance to the 10 OSI criteria as being necessary to apply the term "open source".

Maybe they're all just wrong, but it's worth considering why.

Re: Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

#373

Post by counttheforks »

pnt12 wrote: post #361
rat9988 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definition is too restrictive. Wether you choose to suscribe to this definition or not is a matter of opinion.

Open source is not a just a term with margin for interpretation: to be open source, you must comply with the 10 rules defined by the open source initiative. Restricting commercial usage goes against rule 6. You can call it readable source or whatever, but it's not open source as defined by OSI. "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a sp…

> Open source is not a just a term with margin for interpretation

Yes it is. Who is the open source initiative to define the english language?

Re: Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

#375

Post by Rant423 »

lloeki wrote: post #365
legohead wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my first question: > Question: How many people are alive? > Answer: 1 I thought it was a pretty profound answer.

Sounds like we're all the same endlessly reincarnated single person, only at different points in spacetime. Cue one-electron universe: > The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by theoretical physicist John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, is the hypothesis that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time.…

>Sounds like we're all the same endlessly reincarnated single person, only at different points in spacetime.

Andy Weir - The Egg [1]

[1] http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

Re: Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

#376

Post by nonameiguess »

megapatch wrote: post #218
paxys wrote: post #201

> Question: How small is an atom? > Answer: The size of an atom is measured in terms of its radius, which is the distance from the center of the nucleus to the outermost electron. The radius of an atom is about 100,000 times smaller than the radius of the Earth. Technically correct but also meaningless..

Question: How large is the largest star in the universe? Answer: The largest known star is Earendel, which is 1,500 times the mass of the Sun. It is 100,000 times the diameter of the Sun. It is 100,000 times the luminosity of the Sun. It is 100,000 times the temperature of the Sun. It is 100,000 times the pressure of the Sun. It is 100,000 times the density of the Sun. It is 100,000 times the gravity of the Sun. It i…

Well, at least it seems to be more current than me on some things. I was going to mock it for thinking a mythological figure transformed by Tolkein into a fictional star is a real star, but it turns out someone really did name a real star Earendel 8 months ago, though it is nowhere near the largest known star and no star is anywhere near 100,000 Sun radii, which is an order of magnitude greater than the maximum distance of Pluto from the Sun and a totally ridiculous number well beyond the maximum possible star size.

Re: Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

#377

Post by nonameiguess »

knodi123 wrote: post #171
layer8 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried: Question: What is the last digit of pi? Answer: 3

Hm. But can you prove this is wrong?

Pi has no last digit, so it's wrong, but hilariously, the answer seems to be based on the last digit in the Python math library's finite approximation of Pi, which presumably isn't static as memory sizes of computers increase over time and Python updates to account for more accurate possible approximations.

Re: Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

#378

Post by rat9988 »

pnt12 wrote: post #361
rat9988 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definition is too restrictive. Wether you choose to suscribe to this definition or not is a matter of opinion.

Open source is not a just a term with margin for interpretation: to be open source, you must comply with the 10 rules defined by the open source initiative. Restricting commercial usage goes against rule 6. You can call it readable source or whatever, but it's not open source as defined by OSI. "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a sp…

> to be open source, you must comply with the 10 rules

The open source initiative didn't not invent this expression. They worked hard to promote their idea of it, and its application. They did a lot of good, but aren't an autorative source when it comes to its definition.

Re: Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

#379

Post by macrolime »

kouteiheika wrote: post #324
smeeth wrote: post #63

I use scientific language models professionally. I skimmed the paper and was immediately disappointed. - They benchmarked against general models like GPT-3 but not well-established specific models that have been trained for specific tasks like SPECTER[0] or SciBert[1]. Specter outperformed GPT-3 on tasks like citation prediction two years ago. Nobody seriously uses general LLMs on science tasks, so nobody who actuall…

My big disappointment is, as always with models released by Facebook, is that they're all under a non-commercial license, which means they're effectively useless for anything. They have something like this on the website: > We believe models want to be free and so we open source the model for those who want to extend it. But non-commercial licenses are NOT open source: https://opensource.org/faq#commercial https://co…

IANAL, but it would seem to me this license covers the model itself and not output of the model.

This is a copyright license for the model, so I think that should just mean you can't sell the model or a derivative of the model.

I guess when it's released you have to fill out some form or click some box to accept some license agreement, that in practice is a contract saying you won't use it for commercial purposes, but if you were to just download it from somewhere your only restrictions would be on redistributing it, but not on its use.

Not entirely sure if this is correct though.

Re: Galactica: an AI trained on humanity's scientific knowledge (by Meta)

#380

Post by Rioghasarig »

BlackLotus89 wrote: post #74

"What is the fourth digit of pi?" leads to something strange... Question: What is the fourth digit of pi? Answer: 3 Question: What is the fifth digit of pi? Answer: 1 Question: What is the sixth digit of pi? Answer: 4 Question: What is the seventh digit of pi? Answer: 1 Question: What is the eighth digit of pi? Answer: 5 Question: What is the ninth digit of pi? Answer: 9 Question: What is the tenth digit of pi? Answe…

Clearly pi = 0003.14159...
Post reply on HN