There’s something compelling about these, especially w.r.t. their ability to generalize. But what is the vision here? What might these be able to do in the future? Or even philosophically speaking, what do these teach us about the world? We know a 1D cellular automata is Turing equivalent, so, at least from one perspective, NCA/these aren’t terribly suprising.
Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
11–20 of 100 posts
Re: Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
#12There’s something compelling about these, especially w.r.t. their ability to generalize. But what is the vision here? What might these be able to do in the future? Or even philosophically speaking, what do these teach us about the world? We know a 1D cellular automata is Turing equivalent, so, at least from one perspective, NCA/these aren’t terribly suprising.
Potentially it would be useful if you could enter a grid from satelite images and simulate wildfire spread or pollution spread or similar problems.
Re: Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
#13I wonder what Stephen Wolfram has to say about this.
[flagged]
Re: Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
#14The result checkerboard pattern is the opposite (the NOT) of the target pattern. But this is not remarked upon. Is it too unimportant to mention or did I miss something?
Re: Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
#15There’s something compelling about these, especially w.r.t. their ability to generalize. But what is the vision here? What might these be able to do in the future? Or even philosophically speaking, what do these teach us about the world? We know a 1D cellular automata is Turing equivalent, so, at least from one perspective, NCA/these aren’t terribly suprising.
The self-healing properties suggest biological evolution to me.
Re: Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To answer this, we'll start by attacking Conway's Game of Life - perhaps the most iconic cellular automata, having captivated researchers for decades > At the heart of this project lies... > his powerful paradigm, pioneered by Mordvintsev et al., represents a fundamental shift in... (Not only is this clearly LLM-style, I doubt someone working in a group w/ Mordvintsev would write this) > Traditional cellular automa…
The reason LLMs write like that is, unsurprisingly, that some people write like that. In fact many of them do - it's not uncommon. If you have proof like the logits are statistically significant for LLM output, that would be appreciated - otherwise it's just arguing over style.
Yeah, it’s disheartening that people often think my writing (most of it predates gpt3) is llm, and some of my favourite writers also fall under this wet blanket. LLMs just copy the most common writing style, so now if you write in a common way you are “llm”.
Re: Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which portion of the text gave you that impression?
> To answer this, we'll start by attacking Conway's Game of Life - perhaps the most iconic cellular automata, having captivated researchers for decades > At the heart of this project lies... > his powerful paradigm, pioneered by Mordvintsev et al., represents a fundamental shift in... (Not only is this clearly LLM-style, I doubt someone working in a group w/ Mordvintsev would write this) > Traditional cellular automa…
A lot of these are very close to stuff I have written. Not saying this piece did or didn't get a pass through an LLM, I have no idea, but it really makes me wonder how many people accuse me of using an LLM when it's just how I write.
I feel awful for anyone going to school now, or will be in the future. I probably would have been kicked out, seeing how easily people say "LLM" whenever they read some common phrasing, a particular word, structure of the writing, etc.
Re: Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
#18This writing feels so strongly LLM flavored. It's too bad, since I've really liked Alexander Mordvintsev's other work.
Are you sure you aren’t just falling into the “it’s all llm” trap? A lot of common writing styles are similar, and the most common ones are what LLMs imitate. I often am accused of llm writing. I don’t publish llm text because I think it is a social harm, so it’s pretty demoralising to have people call out my writing as “”llm slop”. OTOH, I have a few books published and people seem to find them handy, so there’s that.
Re: Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason LLMs write like that is, unsurprisingly, that some people write like that. In fact many of them do - it's not uncommon. If you have proof like the logits are statistically significant for LLM output, that would be appreciated - otherwise it's just arguing over style.
I've read a _lot_ of deep learning papers, and this is extremely atypical. I agree with you that if there were any sort of serious implications then it'd be important to establish proof, but in the case of griping on a forum I think the standard of evidence is much lower.
> in the case of griping on a forum I think the standard of evidence is much lower.
Uh, no. Human “slop” is no better than AI slop.
There is no good purpose for a constant hum of predictable poorly supported “oh that’s LLM” “gripes”, if we care about the quality of a forum.
Re: Differentiable Logic Cellular Automata
#20The result checkerboard pattern is the opposite (the NOT) of the target pattern. But this is not remarked upon. Is it too unimportant to mention or did I miss something?
They're learning features, not the exact image (that's why it's so good at self healing). It should be invariant to shifts.