thethirdone
Joined 12 years ago
Karma
1,219
Submissions
491
Member since
Jul 10
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 month ago
If you don't need to read the code at all, what are the engineers doing to make the other issues matter? Deskilling and alienation are still about the relationship between engineers and the code.
Comment · 1 month ago
It would appear from google trends [0] this is roughly right (the article came out in 2024), but it was popular in books [1] 15 years earlier.
[0]: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=pareto%2...
[1]: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=pareto+frontie...
Comment · 6 months ago
> To be fair, TurboQuant is also a purely theoretical paper. I just wanted to get this out and share.
TurboQuant is not a purely theoretical paper. Section 4 "Experiments" (page 15) [0] has a bunch of figure based on actual GPU computations.
Comment · 6 months ago
Yeah, for me Claude identified the phrase "this holds with probability 1 over random weight matrices since the null space has dimension"
Treating trained weights as random for the purpose of a proof is immediately discrediting for a paper to me.
Comment · 6 months ago
> the ratio remains approximately 914x over TurboQuant, with compression improving rather than degrading as context length grows.
This line from the abstract got me really suspicious. Obviously a compression scheme that incorporates the entire sequence shouldn't get worse compared to a per element one as the length increases.
It is important to note that this paper is PURELY theoretical. I couldn't find much meat on the bone from a quick skim.
The single author, Gregory Magarshak, has only published one paper on arxiv before and appears to be a professor of business / music. I don't plan to give it more of a read hoping for something of value.
Comment · 7 months ago
The grid is not all energy use. To get the numbers on an even playing field you need to compensate for that only ~40% of energy goes through the grid.
And that leaves a 6:1 ratio assuming projections run true. It very well might be possible to get efficiency wins from the transportation sector that outweigh growth in AI.
Comment · 7 months ago
> Also, I'm not sure about your math. 4% would be 4% of the whole like in a pie chart, not 4% of the remainder after removing one slice. 4% AI, 30% transportation, 66% other. I don't know where that 40% is from.
40% is for energy use in the US in the form of electricity. It was a rough number that I pulled from my memory. It is roughly right though. Check https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
AI is not currently 4% of the energy market of the US. Only the grid. I should have been more clear about the ALL ENERGY vs GRID distinction.
> I think it might be more emissions-efficient at generating value than AI by a factor exceeding the 7.5x energy use. Moving rocks from (place with rocks) to (place that needs rocks) continues to be just an insanely good thing for humanity.
I really made no statement on the value of doing things. Transportation is obviously very valuable. I just wanted a more fact based conversation.
Comment · 7 months ago
Compare that to ~30% of all energy use for transportation. So approximately 40%*4% = 1.6% vs 30%. I find your correction to be more wrong that the initial statement.
> And most of that new capacity will be natural gas. That increase would basically whipe out the reduction in CO2 emissions the USA has had since 2018.
Emissions in 2018 were ~5250M metric ton and in 2024 it was 4750M. That is a reduction of 10% total emissions. Without going into calculations of green electricity and such, its still safe to say AI using 10% of the grid would not completely wipe out the reduction.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
Comment · 7 months ago
I agree that the movements look quite robotic (though not as much as you might expect), but I don't think any movies have depicted robots moving like that. A much more common depiction is moving only a single joint at a time.
> Sharp, unsure movements, a lot of hesitation, ...
I like these particular descriptors. Another I would add is holding poses unnaturally still. While waiting for the ball, the robot holds its racket extremely consistently relative to its body even while sharply turning.
Comment · 8 months ago
You would not. You don't normally post lots of comments. The occasional return after a long period of inactivity is not in itself suspicious.
Comment · 9 months ago
The d suffix makes it not compile under clang. The PRs seem like mostly small changes that are clear improvements.
Comment · 9 months ago
The criteria were laid out in 2019 [0]. It was less clear then.
> If you are a "rustacean" and feel that Rust already meets the preconditions listed above, and that SQLite should be recoded in Rust, then you are welcomed and encouraged to contact the SQLite developers privately and argue your case.
It seems like the criteria are less of things the SQLite developers are claiming Rust can't do and more that they are non-negotiable properties that need to be considered before even bringing the idea of a rust version to the team.
I think it is at least arguable that Rust does not meet the requirements. And they did explicitly invite private argument if you feel differently.
0: https://web.archive.org/web/20190423143433/https://sqlite.or...
Comment · 9 months ago
Based on Table 1: This method is actually worse than generating a random number (0-100% independent of the program) and testing if it is less than 98.8%. That would achieve a better detection rate without increasing the false positive rate.
It doesn't seem worth it to try to follow the math to see if there is something interesting.
Comment · 9 months ago
I have seen many people try to use Claude Code and get LOTS of bugs. Show me any > 10k project you have made with it and I will put the effort in to find one bug free of charge.