igiveup

And I consider that a great achievement, not being on the HN front page when I have nothing to say.

This stuff should have some warning tag: rando's musings about LLMs. Lately, whenever I think I found an interesting article it turns out to be this.

22ns might be about 100 processor instructions. Somehow I doubt that any programming language can parse 50 strings in 100 instructions, let alone with naive code.

"Blessing of dimensionality"?

Oh, the OP pretty much told me that they didn't like taking notes. I am trying to understand why, what is the mechanism? Is it like burning out? Can it happen to me and my notes when I start doing something wrong? Why is "just do less of it" not a solution? Why is "just expect less from it" not a solution? Am I an exception? If so, why?

"All you need to understand" is for insects.

I don't get this. I have a megabyte or two of plain-text notes, and going through them and maintaining them and extending them is fun (apologize to the person who doesn't like threes). There are notes for a novel, ideas for future personal projects (way too many to do in my remaining lifetime), attempts at capturing my understanding of great scientific and philosophical problems, weird things I invented in my dreams, various ideas which didn't fit anywhere else. Guess what, the novel will probably never get written, projects will never get done, I will not make a philosophical breakthrough. So what?

Some ideas on how am I supposed to start hating my notes:

* They grow to 100MB, then it starts to be a burden

* I switch from notepad.exe to a dedicated application which somehow exploits my hobby of writing notes

* I develop OCD or something else

None of this seems very relatable. At this point, I might be writing a new note with these ideas, updating it when I get more ideas or when the one, most plausible explanation jumps out at me. Then I would read it years later and have something to think about before bed and have a good feeling that I didn't lose something and I am not left with thougths about the last episode of a TV show. Or is that supposed to be a bad feeling?

The point is minimizing curvature, not maximizing length. Curved path makes the accelerated particles lose energy through radiation.

Impossible with just the basic inductive principle of tokamaks, yes. Some years back I learned that you can keep the current going with microwaves, not sure about recent progress. You can also approximate steady state by reversing polarity of the warp - ehm - magnetic field regularly.

Yes, stellarators are different.

While temperature may be in the stellar ballpark, pressure should be much lower. That is fine because we are not trying to do proton-proton fusion (that one is very slow even in a star) but a much easier deuterium-tritium fusion.

Ability to perceive your own thoughts. Access to your own debug logs.

I think this is distinct from "ability to perceive green, which doesn't exist". A neural network trained to distinguish green in the output of a spectroscope will perceive green without ever knowing there is something like a "neural network" or "thoughts".

Also, this probably can be detected from the outside via debugging. What cannot be detected may be the thing that distinguishes a hypothetical "philosophical zombie" from a truly conscious human, but I don't think anything like a philosophical zombie exists. Once it is physically identical to the human, it will also be thinking identically.

As a next step, you may observe humans around you and realize that the thoughts you perceive seem to be running inside the head of one of these humans (which you will call "me"). However, I don't think knowing what you look like from the outside is necessary for consciousness.

What is an optimum in a two-objective (time, space) problem?

Also, how exactly does time help to save space? Is this about some sophisticated hash functions? Handling collisions?

Is that wrong? I don't know the logic of the game, but a 20:10 battle can very well have different odds than a 2:1 one.

To me, it sounds more like you're saying the same thing as me: It is not a law of nature, it is text on paper, a human fiction. Yet, somehow you manage to disagree with me. How did that happen?

Human laws do not follow laws of nature, or laws of logic. Trying to rationalize why something is or isn't owning or stealing is a misunderstanding.

"It is not missing anywhere, so it isn't stealing" does not apply. What applies is more like "This paper says it is stealing, so it is." The paper says it because a human wrote it there, as a result of whatever complexity going on in their natural neural network.

Please notice I didn't say "right", "wrong", "good", or "bad" anywhere.