141–150 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a result of the Copenhagen Interpretation. There are other interpretations of the math which don't rely on reality fundamentally being a probability cloud/wave/field.
I’m not well versed in this but if fundamental particles are probability clouds, the future is not deterministic.
We have always known the old trick of genetic algorithms to produce better radio chips. The problem isn’t the design: its manufacturing restraints. This is nothing new or impressive.
Then why can't these constraints be encoded into the selection/scoring function ?
the biggest question for me is how robust are these designs. in the journal articles they did show measurements of real devices which agreed fine with predictions, but i didn't find them addressing it explicitly in the text. also, some systems they presented contained subblocks that were conventionally designed that could be carrying some of the weight. or maybe i'm just sour that they're coming for my job? or maybe…
Maybe it doesn't matter?
I mean, of course it matters. But most of this sort of design space is effectively NP-complete, where the creation starts with a blank schematic page and has an impossibly large search space, but where the checking of the design is much simpler.
> also, obligatory mention: "genetic antennas"
Exactly. How does this work? When confronted with the question, of course, everybody gets all excited about the constrained randomness of the GA, but if you think about it, what really makes it work is that there is a comparatively cheap test for fitness for purpose.
I feel like technology is going to become alien at some point. We're all going to be using magical runes instead of chips.
I wonder if our common expectation that true theories somehow had to be beautiful and elegant is going to survive the coming century. What if "real" nature phenomenon were actually best described by horrible mess of impossible equations, that only machines could actually manipulate and reason about ? That would be really sad..
When you attempt to hyper-optimize, even with humans in the loop, you end up a mess. You're lucky if you can find clean guiding principles anywhere. If you can hyper-optimize hyper quickly, you end up with an extra layer of mess.
Reminds me of good ol genetic algorithm search. Guess and check can be quite powerful, especially if you can toss in agent in the loop guidance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
This too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolvable_hardware Starting with: https://sci-hub.ru/storage/moscow/4324/11d145b2c2c3ab320f70b...
The section with oscilloscope traces showing the progression of the “designs” over time was extremely interesting - I’d love to see what the 10x10 grid of functions looked like at each snapshot.
Thank you!
I wonder if our common expectation that true theories somehow had to be beautiful and elegant is going to survive the coming century. What if "real" nature phenomenon were actually best described by horrible mess of impossible equations, that only machines could actually manipulate and reason about ? That would be really sad..
Would it be sad? If it’s gnarly and it solves the problem, as an end user I don’t really care. The only people who lose are the mathematical purists
Gaining expertise is always the hard part and our new LLM overlords are making that much harder. So the simple “pure” functions as a teaching aid have never been more important.
End users have never cared about how the sausage is made though.
Reminds me of good ol genetic algorithm search. Guess and check can be quite powerful, especially if you can toss in agent in the loop guidance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
I wonder if our common expectation that true theories somehow had to be beautiful and elegant is going to survive the coming century. What if "real" nature phenomenon were actually best described by horrible mess of impossible equations, that only machines could actually manipulate and reason about ? That would be really sad..
This has been on my mind lately! Especially in light of the many incomprehensible but machine-checkable proofs we've been hearing about. Occam's Razor is a useful heuristic, but it biases us towards simpler explanations.
I think of elegance as not having to add epicycles, not that everything in the system has to be simple.
Also, without a working theory the, the space of possible solutions is near infinite. LLMs manage to pluck out the space of comprehensible English strings from n-dimensional hell. Even if this is done with a black box of billions of parameters, it’s still elegance in the sense that such a space even exists and was found