321–330 of 569 posts
This is impressive as it is optimizing the effort on the low, but not too low hanging fruit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes! Modern AIs have very limited metaknowledge - they don't know exactly where the limits of their capabilities lie. So you can get things like "a task is doable for an AI, but the AI thinks it's impossible, so it doesn't try hard enough". Usually you get the opposite - AI overconfidently trying at tasks it has no conceivable way of reliably solving, falling far short, and failing to self-check, fail gracefull…
> So you can, in fact, get better performance sometimes by applying some variant of "assume this problem is solvable" or "other problems like this were already solved by AIs" pep talk. Not always, far from it, but it does happen on the occasion with frontier capabilities. Are you superstitious?
So, it follows that adding “pep talk” into the context window reduces the statistical probability of “no, can’t do” coming out as the answer you get.
These things are neither humans, nor deterministic software.
the human trait of giving up doesn't exist in fable yet, it just kept looking and looking until it conjured it, analyzing patterns, multiples at the same time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Astra told me yesterday: > The run baseline was captured without a physical MAC; the current device is not durably bound to it. > Engineering mode confirmation is the ESPHome component read-back; the LD2410 UART acknowledgement is not observed, so this is not proof the radar itself applied the sensitivity change. No clue what the fuck any of it means.
Its telling you your mmWave radar isn't speaking over serial communication well. https://www.analog.com/en/resources/analog-dialogue/articles... (Its negging your soldering)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, even many of the proofs seem to be extremely long and complicated. The Navier-Stokes proof is 57 pages of very dense math and a pretty crazy amount of code: https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler/tree/main/Nav... Given the close relationship between compression and intelligence, I'm somewhat surprised at how poorly the cutting edge models do with being concise.
>I'm somewhat surprised at how poorly the cutting edge models do with being concise. because they're not intelligent in the sense you're hinting at (conceptual integrity or generalization) but they are as the name suggests, large. Like comparing a forklift to a human. It's easier to bulldoze through a lot of things than tie your shoes. If we weren't quite as impoverished conceptually and still had the vocabulary of t…
Prove that human intellect is different and that we solve problems using fundamentally different processes. I’m waiting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Astra told me yesterday: > The run baseline was captured without a physical MAC; the current device is not durably bound to it. > Engineering mode confirmation is the ESPHome component read-back; the LD2410 UART acknowledgement is not observed, so this is not proof the radar itself applied the sensitivity change. No clue what the fuck any of it means.
There’s some specific terminology here, like the MAC address of the network device, which might have been virtual. UART is a hardware circuit for communication, possibly a serial port. Were you trying to reverse engineer a consumer device or appliance? This particular instance doesn’t seem terse, but I’m sure it has been on other occasions :)
It also couldn't see the UART communication and could only see the web API endpoint, hence the rest of the slop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, it could have been more than one person. At this point I don't think it really matters, unless he/she starts selling their coins.
Howabout getting an LLM to decipher the password of wallet containing those coins. Surely the point must have come where the required compute would be paid off by the value of the coins. But that’s a wild speculation on my part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally most technologies have increased the use of energy and therefore accelerate climate change. May be an unpopular opinion but in general more energy demand and ways to use energy increases climate emissions - they are strongly correlated even with renewables coming on stream. AI, being the super hungry energy monster it is right now, in my view accelerates this trend not reverses it. Even with renewables the…
AI's energy use is growing, but it's still a small part of overall energy use. Data centres use only a small amount of land in the grand scheme of things. You have a lot more land clearing for most other use cases. Data centres are also more than happy to use electricity from renewable sources, they don't really care where the electricity comes from. You can run a data centre on mostly solar and wind power plus batte…
They also consume deinking water, because it's too expensive to make them with closed loop cooling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes! Modern AIs have very limited metaknowledge - they don't know exactly where the limits of their capabilities lie. So you can get things like "a task is doable for an AI, but the AI thinks it's impossible, so it doesn't try hard enough". Usually you get the opposite - AI overconfidently trying at tasks it has no conceivable way of reliably solving, falling far short, and failing to self-check, fail gracefull…
> So you can, in fact, get better performance sometimes by applying some variant of "assume this problem is solvable" or "other problems like this were already solved by AIs" pep talk. Not always, far from it, but it does happen on the occasion with frontier capabilities. Are you superstitious?