jksk61

Is a TL;DR available or at least some of the ideas covered? Because after 3 paragraphs it seems the good old "it is actually something resembling a cellular automata" post by Wolfram.

funny paper, I still don't know what was the goal of it. It is evident to anyone that LLM can't perform any meaningful reasoning, why even bothering in building such an infrastructure to test whether it is able to become a "scientist".

not even childish gambino ref saved it.

in fact it is nothing new.

"you were supposed to destroy evangelisms not join them!"

now the question is: what is the most complex* object that it is not turing complete?

* let's say you have n distinct rules acting against a set S, the complexity is n.

p.s. probably something trivial exists such that you can take n as large as we wish to, so probably my definitions are not interesting.

bruh! with 100 mln elements in the dataset it is basically printing out previously known problems during testing.

I don't get it, what's cool about it? Einstein notation seems good enough for most of the things and they are equivalent. Is there anything interesting (i.e. new) that this notation allow?

> What's the strength of play for the GPT architecture? It's impressive that it figures out the rules, but does it play strong chess?

sometimes it is not a matter of "is it better? is it larger? is it more efficient?", but just a question.

mountains are mountains, men are men.

it seems to try too hard on proving things have improved by white lying a bit.

Some examples:

* Environment: air quality in most places has continued to improve (and considering the growing evidence on the harms of air pollution, this may well be the single most important item on this whole page), forest area has increased, and more rivers are safe to fish in - yeah except that are only statistics related to USA, not to mention the Detroit area water pollution thing that it is still going on. Or all the PFAS related drama happening recently.

* LASIK surgery has gone from an expensive questionable novelty to a cheap, routine, safe cosmetic surgery - yeah, almost cheap, safe sure, but none of the people I met actually says they'll do it again (sample N=5), for various reasons. Some: they did have to take glasses again after a few years, colors were less vivid, eyes were less hydrated.

* Food, it is nice that fast food aren't shitty anymore, but there are still plenty of contaminations happening (not only in USA but all-over the world). Moreover, the food is becoming worse because of the lack of microsubstances (and soil degradation) as well as the increase in CO2. Agriculture output is damped by climate change.

very nice!

If you need an exponential number of coupled oscillators to construct a general purpose computer, then you don't have the exponential speedup.

of course not, none is considering fusion as a reliable workable solution for the 2050 net zero goals. I mean they don't even consider opting out gas and oil until 2040s or even later lol