331–340 of 461 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another speed-up is to skip the sum of digits check if n % 9 != 30 % 9. Sum of digits have the same remainder divided by 9 as the number. This rules out 8/9 = 88% candidates.
Did you measure it? I would expect using % would ruin your performance as it's slow, even if it allows you to avoid doing a bunch of sums (which are fast).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried it in OpenAI's O1. If I give it minimaxir's original prompt it writes the obvious loop, even if I include the postamble "Look for tricks that will make this function run as fast as possible in the common case". However, if I then simply ask "What is the most probable result for this function to return?" it figures out the answer and a very good approximation of the probability (4.5e-5). From there it's easily…
This gets to the old saw, "knowing what question to ask is the most important thing". To the extent that LLMs can answer questions better than formulate which ones to ask , they may be inherently limited. We will see.
Wonder how much benefit a meta lang for describing these problems correctly for the LLMs to process into code, an even-higher level language perhaps we could call it English?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazing. Next step would be to propose hardcoding 99930-3999 as the O(1) result and live with the output just being wrong sometimes. The bug rate is then in the ballpark of most modern software, including LLMs', so I'd say ship it.
Doesn’t this line of thinking constantly redefine success until all software is only bugs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The input generation is outside the scope of this. Otherwise you could directly choose the output values with the apropriate distribution and just skip all the rest. (Arguably, this criticism applies to exchanging random.randint for a numpy equivalent as well, since that doesn't optimize the solution but only how quickly the question is being generated.)
Iterating a precomputed list is a method of generating random numbers. It is used in the one time pad. Whether we iterate a precomputed list or use a pseudo random number generator, we can short circuit the random number generator using this trick. We cannot directly choose the output values, because then it would not be random.
The headline question here alone gets at what is the biggest widespread misunderstanding of LLMs, which causes people to systematically doubt and underestimate their ability to exhibit real creativity and understanding based problem solving. At it's core an LLM is a sort of "situation specific simulation engine." You setup a scenario, and it then plays it out with it's own internal model of the situation, trained on…
The headline question here alone gets at what is the biggest widespread misunderstanding of LLMs, which causes people to systematically doubt and underestimate their ability to exhibit real creativity and understanding based problem solving. At it's core an LLM is a sort of "situation specific simulation engine." You setup a scenario, and it then plays it out with it's own internal model of the situation, trained on…
> This can largely be mitigated with more careful and specific prompting of what exactly you are asking it to simulate. If you don't specify, there will be a high frequency of accurately simulating uninformed idiots, as occur in much of the text on the internet. I don't think people are underestimating LLMs, they're just acknowledging that by the time you've provided sufficient specification, you're 80% of the way to…
What people want and expect them to be is an Oracle that correctly answers their vaguely specified questions, which is simply not what they are, or are good at. What they can do is fascinating and revolutionary, but possibly not very useful yet, at least until we think of a way to use it, or make it even more intelligent. In fact, thinking is what they are good at, and simply repeating facts from a training set is something they cannot do reliably- because the model must inherently be too compressed to store a lot of facts correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish people would understand what a large language model is. There is no thinking. No comprehension. No decisions. Instead, think of your queries as super human friendly SQL. The database? Massive amounts of data boiled down to unique entries with probabilities. This is a simplistic, but accurate way to think of LLMs. So how much code is on the web for a particular problem solve? 10k blog entries, stackoverflow res…
> Instead, think of your queries as super human friendly SQL. I feel that comparison oversells things quite a lot. The user is setting up a text document which resembles a question-and-response exchange, and executing a make-any-document-bigger algorithm. So it's less querying for data and more like shaping a sleeping dream of two fictional characters in conversation, in the hopes that the dream will depict one chara…
Developers and folks discussing the technology can't afford to fall for our own illusion, even if it's a really good illusion. Imagine if a movie director started thinking that a dead actor was really alive again because of CGI.
> how to completely uninstall and reinstall postgresql on a debian distribution without losing the data in the database. https://www.phind.com/search?cache=lrcs0vmo0wte5x6igp5i3607 Still seem to struggle on basic instructions, and even understanding what it itself is doing. sudo rm -rf /etc/postgresql sudo rm -rf /var/lib/postgresql sudo rm -rf /var/log/postgresql > This process removes all PostgreSQL components, cle…