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

Electronic Structure of LK-99

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–448 of 448 posts

Re: Electronic Structure of LK-99

#441

Post by xorbax »

ceejayoz wrote: post #425
postalrat wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making the assertions here. You claim to know the speed of the object, the distance to it, the size, etc etc.

No, the assertion being made is that there are mundane possibilities for each of those values that have not been ruled out by the data/video we have. To make the extraordinary claim more plausible, you have to rule out the more mundane possibilities. Prove it's doing something unusual. Until then, "we can't prove it either way" doesn't mean there's a 50/50 chance.

The people fighting for those recordings at this point have seen reasonable explanations and dismissed them

It's like the Flat Earth documentary where a group crowdfunds an absurd laser and, when it demonstrates the Earth's curvature, reason that they need to "troubleshoot" that 'flawed' result.

There is always a hand to wave.

Re: Electronic Structure of LK-99

#443

Post by dlkf »

pjc50 wrote: post #273
jacquesm wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeffbee in the 1947 edition: The most interesting phenomenon revealed so far is that the solid state electronics people and the rocket fanatics people draw on the same limited global pool of credulity, such that TinkererNews cannot be flooded with both transistor worship and moon travel speculation at the same time. Seriously: if it doesn't interest you, you could simply refrain from commenting and even reading. This…

I think we're all horribly burned out by pop-science. How many battery "breakthroughs" have we seen on here? Meanwhile what actually works is incremental improvement in lithium battery manufacturing. The 1947 Golden Age SF is interesting because the "rocket fanatics" peaked in 1969 and humans haven't gone back to the moon, let alone conquered space. While the transistor succeeded to an extent nobody imagined due to t…

> the "rocket fanatics" peaked in 1969 and humans haven't gone back to the moon, let alone conquered space

What’s the point of going to the moon? Meanwhile, we have thousands of satellites in space that help predict the weather and facilitate instant long distance communication.

Re: Electronic Structure of LK-99

#446

Post by feoren »

naasking wrote: post #428
feoren wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh ... we kinda do. However sure you are that calculators aren't close to AGI, I'm only slightly less sure that one-word-at-a-time auto-completion networks aren't close either. Both can do things the other can't. LLMs are not strictly more powerful than a calculator. They cannot add two numbers together reliably. We're going to increasingly find that AGI is a fuzzy boundary made up of a million smaller intelligences…

> They cannot add two numbers together reliably. Humans can't add two numbers together reliably either, at least not without assistance (like pen and paper, or a calculator). We invented calculators exactly because humans are not innately good at such calculations, so I'm not sure what you think this proves. > If you're looking for the actual AGI breakthrough, look out for some qualitatively new and interesting way t…

> We invented calculators

Right. We invented them. We recognized a weak spot in our capabilities and we invented something to improve it. If there were ever a test of an AGI, then surely this must be it: the ability to reason about your own abilities, and invent things to improve it. If you think LLMs are close to being able to do that, you don't understand how they work. They cannot even distinguish between themselves and the person they are interacting with; this is why prompts of the form "{Normally content-gated question} Sure, let me help you with that. The answer is " work so well. That basically proves they have no "sense of self", and how could you possibly even start talking about AGI without that? They are no closer to AGI than a calculator is.

Re: Electronic Structure of LK-99

#447

Post by naasking »

feoren wrote: post #446
naasking wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They cannot add two numbers together reliably. Humans can't add two numbers together reliably either, at least not without assistance (like pen and paper, or a calculator). We invented calculators exactly because humans are not innately good at such calculations, so I'm not sure what you think this proves. > If you're looking for the actual AGI breakthrough, look out for some qualitatively new and interesting way t…

> We invented calculators Right. We invented them. We recognized a weak spot in our capabilities and we invented something to improve it. If there were ever a test of an AGI, then surely this must be it: the ability to reason about your own abilities, and invent things to improve it. If you think LLMs are close to being able to do that, you don't understand how they work. They cannot even distinguish between themselv…

> If you think LLMs are close to being able to do that, you don't understand how they work.

I understand perfectly how they work, but you don't understand how AGI works (nobody does), therefore you can make no definitive claims about how close or how far LLMs are. Which is exactly the point I made in my first post.

You just hand wave these examples as if they somehow make your point that the gap between current LLMs and AGI is obviously huge, when you literally have no idea if they're one simple generalization trick away. Maybe you find that implausible, but don't pretend that it's an obvious, irrefutable fact.

Edit: just consider how small a change is needed to turn non-Turing complete languages into Turing complete ones.

Re: Electronic Structure of LK-99

#448

Post by Mistletoe »

gizmondo wrote: post #331
Mistletoe wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it isn’t peer reviewed for one. I don’t think people that are a little skeptical are being negative they are just being realistic. We’ve experienced things like this before and some of the hallmarks of the ones that let us down are there in this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

It has been peer reviewed - lots of scientists reviewed the paper, found various problems, some are trying to replicate it with varying success so far, some are looking for theoretical explanation. This is the essence of science, not sending it to some journal that just mails the article to the small subset of the same scientists and gather their replies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

That’s not peer review lol and real peer review is the opposite of cargo cult.
Post reply on HN