jbay808

Yes, exactly. And it's the compression that makes this happen. If it was just curve-fitting then the LLM really would act like a stochastic parrot, and it wouldn't generalize; also the model would also need to be much much bigger. As it is, the models are very big but they're still tiny compared to the dataset that they compress, so the compression process forces them to approximate a solution to the inverse problem.

And yeah, that means the base model training process is solving the inverse problem of finding an approximation for the processes that generate all human records and also anything else in the dataset with a compressible pattern to discover (weather data, etc). So it's not surprisng that some kind of world model emerges out of this.

If the proof of concept takes an hour to code up, or proving the market exists just takes a bit of googling, then sure, you can prepare that before the first meeting where you suggest the idea.

If the proof of concept requires spending a few days in the machine shop making jigs and parts, purchasing equipment, and a custom PCB, then I really hope you'll bring it up for discussion beforehand in a meeting. Ten minutes of discussion with colleagues might be as useful as several iterations of prototyping. Not so that they'll shoot it down, but because someone might say "oh yeah, we have a spare mcguffin from last year's demo that you can use, should save you lots of time."

You must have very different kinds of meetings than I do. Unless you're going into that meeting with a rehearsed PowerPoint presentation, or there's a strict agenda that doesn't allow any time for exploration, I expect to hear imperfect-ideas-in-infancy. One of the reasons we have meetings is to allow collaboration to happen. It's a format for working together.

You can fire the shot and then patch the hole at the same time, proposing solutions to the same problem you pointed out, rather than just shooting and letting one person handle defense from every attack.

Definitely impressive as a proof of concept. A lot of the other problems can be solved with iteration. There are some IP67-rated drone motors meant to both fly and run underwater (available from Westmag for example).

There might be less that can be done about the underwater drag, but if it doesn't need to go long distances underwater that's not as much of a problem. For the RF signal, it can either run autonomously underwater, or use a fibre-optic umbilical, or even convert from an umbilical to wireless when it takes to the air.

You can do a lot with chaos. One of the things it lets you do is find an unforced trajectory from the vicinity of any state to the vicinity of any other (accessible) state. Sensitivity to initial conditions means sensitivity to perturbations, which also means sensitivity to small control inputs, and this can be leveraged to your advantage.

Multibody orbits are one such chaotic system, which means you can take advantage of that chaos to redirect your space probe from one orbit to another using virtually zero fuel, as NASA did with its ISEE-3 spacecraft.

You have to account for the energy required to break the bonds of the CH4, though. This means if you burn methane the usual way you get (CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O + 803 kJ/mol); if you burn it with an ideal zero-emissions reaction, you get (CH4 + O2 --> C + 2H2O + 409 kJ/mol), or just a little more than half the energy from the same gas.

Your accounting works if someone else does the pyrolysis for you and you're left with just the H2 and C at the end, but mine includes the energy consumed by the pyrolysis step that breaks the methane molecule (albeit neglecting any thermodynamic losses, which there will be several -- for example you need to recapture the heat carried away by the hot carbon atoms). On the other hand, you can hardly wish for a better feedstock for CVD diamond production...

Interesting to see this on the HN front page. On the subject of methane pyrolysis, it turns out if you look at the Gibbs free energy calculation, about half of the energy of methane combustion is released from the formation of water, and the other half from the formation of carbon dioxide. That suggests that if you can be efficient with conserving the heat of pyrolysis, you can make a methane power plant that starts with a pyrolysis step to separate out the carbon atoms in an oxygen-free environment, and then burn the remaining hydrogen to power the cycle, and the end result would be a zero-emissions natural gas power plant. It would require twice as much gas to run, but if you can find a good value-added use for the carbon, it could potentially still be cost effective.

This would probably be much more efficient than doing pyrolysis to extract the hydrogen for use in electricity generation somewhere else, because you don't lose the substantial stored heat energy in the process of cooling that hydrogen back down.

And I can't help but wonder if fossil fuel companies might suddenly start endorsing aggressive zero-emissions targets if there's a way for this to double the demand for their products, rather than eliminating it.

It's mainly the laser itself that is the expensive part. If you only care about resolution it's easy, you just need a single-mode laser. But if you care about accuracy it's very difficult, because then the wavelength needs to be stable, and that requires a much more expensive laser. Most people looking for an interferometer are interested in accuracy, unless they're just measuring vibrations.

Thanks, it should be fixed now!

I disagree with the assertion that "VLMs don't actually see - they rely on memorized knowledge instead of visual analysis". If that were really true, there's no way they would have scored as high as 17%. I think what this shows is that they over-weight their prior knowledge, or equivalently, they don't put enough weight on the possibility that they are being given a trick question. They are clearly biased, but they do see.

But I think it's not very different from what people do. If directly asked to count how many legs a lion has, we're alert to it being a trick question so we'll actually do the work of counting, but if that image were instead just displayed in an advertisement on the side of a bus, I doubt most people would even notice that there was anything unusual about the lion. That doesn't mean that humans don't actually see, it just means that we incorporate our priors as part of visual processing.

If I were given five seconds to glance at the picture of a lion and then asked if there was anything unusual about it, I doubt I would notice that it had a fifth leg.

If I were asked to count the number of legs, I would notice right away of course, but that's mainly because it would alert me to the fact that I'm in a psychology experiment, and so the number of legs is almost certainly not the usual four. Even then, I'd still have to look twice to make sure I hadn't miscounted the first time.

This might be a great alternative to beryllium copper for the spring contact element in high-current electrical connectors.