numeri

I think capitalization messed up the title here: It should be N^o(1)

> I’m happier to have more questions answered than for fewer answered but in an artisanal fashion.

Given that this is pure mathematics we're talking about, for the most part: Why?

Perhaps you are a mathematician and so these questions are relevant to you, but for most of us, these questions and their answers will not make any tangible difference in our lives or society.

You don't hire someone to "run math" in the context of all these discussions, which are about pure mathematics.

... thinking is how I feed my child. Telling me to have fun is such a tasteless and tactless suggestion

"And it and those robots will be owned by people who don't care if you starve or freeze to death."

And unlike those in Jamestown, who could just ignore the robots and continue working the land to survive, we will be forced to allow the robots to take over our roles.

Did you let it profile the code?

What do you mean by iterative chunking? There are Transformer variants that hierarchically build token- or word-level representations from bytes, then reverse it to decode, but they never really took off. Didn't help much compared to a good tokenizer.

This is used quite often in SoTA quantization algorithms, which definitely count as production

I think this is the perfect example of how using Claude can trick you into thinking you've done something more impressive, when you're using it beyond your own understanding.

As far as I understand, you downloaded the structure of a neural network, ran it with essentially arbitrary weights, trained a classifier on the essentially arbitrary behavior, then simulated an approximation of that arbitrary behavior.

You could argue that there might be biases towards certain behaviors encoded in the connectivity, and I'm sure you'd be right, but your experiment is incapable of differentiating between those interesting behaviors and random noise. Especially because flies sorta act random anyway.

But I'm not claiming infinite harm with infinitesimal chances. I'm talking about finite harms with what seem to me to be non-zero chances. That makes it normal cost-benefit/risk analysis.

If you're trying to argue that the chances of a non-human source of greater than human intelligence having different goals than us is infinitesimally small, then I'd be interested in what arguments you have to back that up.

The problem isn't about what you think is the most likely scenario, the problem is the possibility of any of the many worst cases.

What does kowtow mean here? Say the other person is better than them?

Asking people to help you (within reason and without exhausting their resources), actually makes people like you more.

You have to be a minimum amount of likeable in the first place, though.