Live data from Hacker News

Apollo 11 vs. USB-C Chargers (2020)

forrestheller.com

201–209 of 209 posts

Re: Apollo 11 vs. USB-C Chargers (2020)

#201
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mtg is more recent than things like the johnniac, but plausibly there's a traditional card game with the same criteria that predates electronic computation but then we have to ask thorny ontological questions: does a card game count if it requires a particular configuration to be turing-complete, but nobody ever played it in that configuration? what if nobody ever played the game at all? what if nobody even knew the…

The MtG preprint suggest people have been looking for such games but failed to identify any. From "Previous Work", first page, column 2: > Prior to this work, no undecidable real games were known to exist. Demaine and Hearn (2009) [10] note that almost every real-world game is trivially decidable, as they produce game trees with only computable paths. They further note that Rengo Kriegspiel {Rengo Kriegspiel is a com…

i don't have much to add here but wanted to express my gratitude for having had the opportunity to read your wonderful comment

well, maybe one thing: if it doesn't matter whether anyone played the game or knew the rules, then magic: the gathering was turing-complete before the first magic deck was printed, before the first human was born, before the first star was formed, perhaps before the big bang

Re: Apollo 11 vs. USB-C Chargers (2020)

#203
post #186
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most digital computers are Turing complete, but interestingly not all programming languages are Turing complete. Turing completeness is a tar pit that makes your code hard to analyse and optimise. It's an interesting challenge to find languages that allow meaningful and useful computation that are not Turing complete. Regular expressions and SQL-style relational algebra (but not Perl-style regular expressions nor mos…

yes, total functional programming is an interesting research area, and of course almost all of our subroutines are intended to verifiably terminate

I'm not even sure total programming needs to be functional. That's just the most common way to do it, I guess, because functional programming is a good vehicle for 'weird' theoretical computer science ideas.

Re: Apollo 11 vs. USB-C Chargers (2020)

#204
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MtG preprint suggest people have been looking for such games but failed to identify any. From "Previous Work", first page, column 2: > Prior to this work, no undecidable real games were known to exist. Demaine and Hearn (2009) [10] note that almost every real-world game is trivially decidable, as they produce game trees with only computable paths. They further note that Rengo Kriegspiel {Rengo Kriegspiel is a com…

i don't have much to add here but wanted to express my gratitude for having had the opportunity to read your wonderful comment well, maybe one thing: if it doesn't matter whether anyone played the game or knew the rules, then magic: the gathering was turing-complete before the first magic deck was printed, before the first human was born, before the first star was formed, perhaps before the big bang

Thanks, I appreciate it!

If you go down that route you'll realize there are an uncountable number of games that have never been created, and will never be created, which are Turing-complete.

And start wondering if mathematics is created or discovered.

Re: Apollo 11 vs. USB-C Chargers (2020)

#205
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They both do the same thing compute an output from given inputs. So they are properly distinguished from each other on how they do the computing. They both deserve the name 'computer'.

only in the same sense that a machinist's micrometer, an optical telescope, an analog television set, an acoustic guitar, a letterpress printing press, a car's manual transmission, a fountain pen, a nomogram, and a transistor also 'compute an output from given inputs' do you want to call them all 'computers' now?

But wait computer is 'one who calculates' and means a person or team of people who perform mathematical calculations.

Re: Apollo 11 vs. USB-C Chargers (2020)

#206

I'm a bit tired of all the sensationalist "look what landed on the moon vs. today's hardware" comparisons. The first airplanes didn't have any sort of computer on board, so computation power is not the single deciding factor on the performance and success of such an endeavor. The software (and hardware) of the Apollo missions was very well-engineered. We all know computation became ridiculously more powerful in the m…

I don't think that these types of articles are meant to offend, just to point out how far miniaturization has come along as well as the software tools that support the silicon. That is no insult to the original engineers and scientists who actually sent a mfkn rocket to the mfkn moon. Those same engineers would have zero problems picking up on new hardware if they some how got time shifted to now. we're still the same humans using the same human brains.

Re: Apollo 11 vs. USB-C Chargers (2020)

#207
post #16

> Apollo 11 spacecraft contains 4 computers Analog computers don't get the respect they deserve. There's one more computer, the FCC. The Flight Control Computer is an analog computer in the Saturn V that controlled the rocket gimbals. It's a two-foot cylinder weighing almost 100 pounds.

And here[1][2] are a couple of pictures from the Saturn V they have (in the appropriately named Saturn V Hall) at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL.

[1] https://imgur.com/qscoWrR [2] https://imgur.com/HHg5ohS

Re: Apollo 11 vs. USB-C Chargers (2020)

#209
post #75

So in 50 years the equivalent of a gpt4 training cluster from today's datacenters will fit in a cheap cable, and it will run over 100 times faster than a full cluster today.

I'd say even more impressive is that, given an ARM Cortex X4 runs at almost 100x the clock speed, up to 14 cores, has caches, branch prediction, floating point, specialized instructions, gpu, etc., it's probably 100000 times faster than the CYPD4225. So given GPT4 training took ~100 days, it means a typical cell phone equivalent in 50 years will be able to train a GPT4 equivalent from scratch in under a second.

What hardware giveth, software taketh away. JS frameworks of the 2070s will find some reason to fully retrain an LLM on each keypress.
Post reply on HN