datastoat

I believe that chain-of-thought reasoning blocks don't really correspond to what humans think of as reasoning. (See section 6.2.2 of the Fable/Mythos system card about "illegible reasoning", and the questions raised by the Apple paper on "The illusion of thinking".) I assumed they obscure the reasoning blocks because if users saw what's going on they'd be alarmed. Just as I'd probably be alarmed if I saw what was really going on in the heads of my colleagues ...

Goodhart's Law of Specification: When a spec reaches a state where it's comprehensive and precise enough to generate code, it has fallen out of alignment with the original intent.

Of course there are some systems where correctness is vital, and for those I'd like a precise spec and proof of correctness. But I think there's a huge bulk of code where formal specification impedes what should be a process of learning and adapting.

Wouldn’t it be handy if the browser could intelligently join this author’s sentences into paragraphs?! (in connection to the thread about Mozilla putting AI in the browser)

Darwin would claim otherwise! Single cells plus random mutation plus selective copying = rocket ships.

Author: "5% chance of shipping something that only looked good by chance". One philosophy of statistics says that the product either is better or isn't better, and that it's meaningless to attach a probability to facts, which the author seems to be doing with the phrase "5% chance of shipping something".

Parent: "5% chance of looking as good as it did, if it were truly no better than the alternative." This accepts the premise that the product quality is a fact, and only uses probability to describe the (noisy / probabilistic) measurements, i.e. "5% chance of looking as good".

Parent is right to pick up on this, if we're talking about a single product (or, in medicine, if we're talking about a single study evaluating a new treatment). But if we're talking about a workflow for evaluating many products, and we're prepared to consider a probability model that says some products are better than the alternative and others aren't, then the author's version is reasonable.

Empirical Bayes is exactly what I was getting at. It's a pragmatic modelling choice, but it loses the theoretical guarantees about uncertainty quantification that pure Bayesianism gives us.

(Though if you have a reference for why empirical Bayes does give theoretical guarantees, I'll be happy to change my mind!)

Non-Bayesian NN training does indeed use regularizers that are chosen subjectively —- but they are then tested in validation, and the best-performing regularizer is chosen. Thus the choice is empirical, not subjective.

A Bayesian could try the same thing: try out several priors, and pick the one that performs best in validation. But if you pick your prior based on the data, then the classic theory about “principled quantification of uncertainty” doesn’t apply any more. So you’re left using a computationally unwieldy procedure that doesn’t offer theoretical guarantees.

I like Bayesian inference for few-parameter models where I have solid grounds for choosing my priors. For neural networks, I like to ask people "what's your prior for ReLU versus LeakyReLU versus sigmoid?" and I've never gotten a convincing answer.

The article explained that there are two roughly equal drivers: (1) Water is a better heat reserve than land, and winds tend to blow eastwards, so Europe gets air warmed by the sea and the US east coat gets colder air that's come from the land. (2) The joint effect of the altitude of the Rockies and the angular rotation of the earth mean that air currents are southeast over the Rockies and then northeast, so arctic air gets pulled down and then pushed back up over the US east coast.

Windows 8 (Metro) used semantic zoom. It's been a while, but I do remember that one of the apps that used it very nicely was Photos. A search for "windows metro semantic zoom" comes up with lots of articles about semantic-zoom-aware GridView controls etc.

Why isn't it commonplace? I think that touchscreen laptops are still too much a minority, and keyboard + mouse + monitor are too entrenched, for anyone to seriously attempt it again for a while. (A shame -- I'm one of the few who really liked the Windows 8 Metro interface.) I think that phones are too small for it to really work well. I don't know why it's not more popular on tablets.

As an Australian I'm used to hearing "antipodean" and sometimes "antipodes", so "octopodes" sits well!