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

New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 226 posts

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#171

Post by Dylan16807 »

zmgsabst wrote: post #123
Dylan16807 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a very small neural network, you can fully understand and explain how it works. As you increase the detail of a description, it reaches a point where nothing is missing.

As I pointed out, eg, the high number of correction terms when trying to tune the model to actual particle accelerator data is evidence that our model is missing something. (And some things are plain missing: neutrino behavior, dark matter, dark energy, etc.) In the same way that a high number of epicycles was evidence our theory of geocentrism was wrong — even though adding epicycles did compute increasingly accurat…

The comment you originally replied to was about entanglement, not the entire standard model. The math there is very simple, not built on correction terms.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#172

Post by mkehrt »

dkarl wrote: post #12
clickety_clack wrote: post #7

I have trouble explaining to my parents how my job is a real thing. I can only imagine trying to explain ‘I study shapes, but only ones that don’t jut inwards’.

I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…

I think you can explain the product you work on rather the what you actually do.

I personally say I work on Bluetooth support for Google Home assistant devices. "It's like Alexa, but Google.

Even if you work on some absurdly down stack thing, this seems to work. You work on making sure the internet is as fast as possible, or files are stored in the cloud properly, or the graphics on your computer are displayed correctly.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#174

Post by TimTheTinker »

IncRnd wrote: post #48
mike_ivanov wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A horse is just a bunch of chemicals in a skin sack. Gee, I understand it!

Hmmmm, what might Feynman say about a horse? So, what's a horse? Well, you look at it: it’s this big animal, standing on four legs, with muscles rippling under its skin, breathing steam into the cold air. And already — that’s amazing. Because somehow, inside that animal, grass gets turned into motion. Just grass! It eats plants, and then it runs like the wind. Now, let’s dig deeper. You see those legs? Bones and tend…

Sounds like an LLM's impression of Feynman.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#175

Post by evanb »

zmgsabst wrote: post #123
Dylan16807 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a very small neural network, you can fully understand and explain how it works. As you increase the detail of a description, it reaches a point where nothing is missing.

As I pointed out, eg, the high number of correction terms when trying to tune the model to actual particle accelerator data is evidence that our model is missing something. (And some things are plain missing: neutrino behavior, dark matter, dark energy, etc.) In the same way that a high number of epicycles was evidence our theory of geocentrism was wrong — even though adding epicycles did compute increasingly accurat…

The standard model has ~20 parameters (depending on what exactly you include as 'the' SM) and it predicts hundreds of thousands of data points.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#176

Post by NL807 »

shakna wrote: post #149
ordu wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With all that said, I prefer to first explain my job in an “explain like I’m 5” style and, if the other party indicates interest, add detail and jargon It is just your choice. I'd prefer a short answer full of jargon. It gives people the opportunity to clarify what they want to ask. Do they really want to know details? Or they want a rough idea of an answer? Or they just filling silence with small talk? Though othe…

I think the negotiation signal being sent by "all jargon" is "fuck off". It's not an attempt to gauge what level the other person is using. It's a blank wall, being thrust towards them.

Not exactly a bad thing in my books.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#177

Post by falcor84 »

m463 wrote: post #121
pseudocomposer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I meet people who immediately use hyper-specific jargon with strangers, I either distrust them, or assume they’re not emotionally intelligent (because it’s a choice demonstrates little respect for the person they’re addressing). It also projects that they may be compensating for some emotional insecurity on their own end, trying to assert intellectual “superiority” in some way. The first option (explaining thing…

I'm reminded of this dilbert cartoon: https://web.archive.org/web/20230228154639im_/https://assets...

and I'm reminded of this xkcd about the pattern of lights:

https://xkcd.com/722/

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#178

Post by shakna »

NL807 wrote: post #176
shakna wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the negotiation signal being sent by "all jargon" is "fuck off". It's not an attempt to gauge what level the other person is using. It's a blank wall, being thrust towards them.

Not exactly a bad thing in my books.

Maybe so, if that is your choice, but it is not giving "people the opportunity to clarify what they want to ask".

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#179

Post by dghughes »

falcor84 wrote: post #177
m463 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of this dilbert cartoon: https://web.archive.org/web/20230228154639im_/https://assets...

and I'm reminded of this xkcd about the pattern of lights: https://xkcd.com/722/

I've often thought how my cat must think I am insane. I sit in from of a medium-sized glowing rectangle, I occasionally look at a small glowing rectangle, then in the evening stare at a really large glowing rectangle.

Re: New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

#180

Post by knicholes »

knicholes wrote: post #24
readthenotes1 wrote: post #3

Earlier today there was an article about neanderthal's rendering fat. The comments pointed out that anthropologist did not know that boiling was possible before the invention of pottery. Another comment pointed out that science teachers knew that it was possible because that was something they would do in class. Final comment was about how people ReDiscover things in different fields - - like the trapezoidal rule for…

If only there were some sort of expert in everything that we could ask, it could pull expertise from all various sciences into one response. I think everyone just needs to start using LLMs.

By the way, for anyone down voting, ask o3 if humans could render fat before they had pottery. It takes seconds to find the answer.
Post reply on HN