yeoyeo42

define AGI

interesting. how does the AA work in your algorithm?

the reason slug has two bands is precisely because of its anti-aliasing. you having only one implies you do the AA differently, or are less efficient with searches off the main direction.

for readers: the slug shader traces two rays, one horizontally, and one vertically, to find out if a pixel is inside a glyph or outside. one would be enough for pure inside outside, but for anti-aliasing purposes it's also helpful to know how far away you are from the closest edge. but if you have a horizontal ray running parallel to a horizontal glyph edge (not uncommon), the ray glyph intersection will return no value at all. so slug traces two rays and blends between them for anti-aliasing that always works in both cases. the bands mentioned here are just acceleration structures, basically a list of cells where each tells you which parts of a glyph are contained within it.

it's still approximate. a true ground truth would just supersample and do many point-in-glyph tests within one real pixel - at edges some of them would be inside, and some of them would be outside, giving you a smooth value to display depending on the shape of the glyph within the edge pixel.

its linear algebra but not a linear transformation. repeat: translations are not linear transformations in 3d.

trivial task for fable

the average user has nowhere near enough the capability to run a model fast enough to do useful things

AI's are also human made (and in the case of LLMS, trivially and obviously trained to be as human as possible), therefor there's no escape from your nightmare.

no offense, but it just sounds like you don't understand local maxima in high dimensional spaces.

a suboptimal trait evolving that still provided an overall population benefit (via survival or reproduction) with further improvement close to impossible without a multitude of large changes is literally just a local maximum in that high dimensional space that maps traits to whatever success metric you're measuring.

the infinite wall you describe is not a wall in that space. actually I originally wrote its more like a wall in the derivative space but its not quite right either, those just point straight down from the maximum.

misinfo. that has nothing to do with why athletes train the way they do. getting more calories in is not a limiting factor.

anaerobic lactic and alactic regime training just has a hard metabolic and fatigue thresholds where you won't see any improvements if you add volume.

aerobic regime training (which is by its nature low intensity) does, from what we know, not really have the same limitations. on the contrary a lot of its most important adaptions keep increasing with absdurd training volumes and only show up after accumulated years and decades of training (long distance endurance athletes can often peak or maintain near peak shape into their 40s or 50s because of this).

all of this necessitates large volumes of low intensity training.

the toy problem is for demonstration purposes. this is a lived experienced in everyday programming of performance sensitive fields.

those apps tend to be vastly more architecturally complex in almost every way compared to your average corporate or web app too.

quite loaded words there. "knowledge", "relationships".

the llm must be able to output the correct code when the input says something like 'place object x to the left of object y' vs when it says 'to the right'. there is an absurd combinatorial space of the possible inputs vs outputs it must generate -> the whole set of these, interpreted from a human point of view, you could call knowledge. the [x] in input x output you could call the relationships. And the fact that the LLM doesn't have to brute force represent all of them (impossible in the limited embedding vector x internal representation state) you could interpret as 'understanding'. But again, these are loaded words that are somewhat meaningless when looking at what an LLM does in a literal way.

They have plenty graphics code to train from, so this structure will be directly or indirectly available in the training data in a very plentiful way.

In literal llm transformer terms, the embeddings must have some of their components statistically represent spatial structure in some way that later in the internal layers of the LLM give some statistics of how likely it is to occur for certain code tokens to appear relative to the input of spatial wording in the token stream.

it is likely that their internal representations encode something more general than specific input x output stream combinations (because we already know this is the case for regular words and concepts). if not in the embeddings, then a couple layers into the network for sure.

yes. in the sense that they probably wouldnt want to do this but the law forces them to do an extremely dumb thing.

they're paying for the books, no shady things going on there. whether the publishers should deserve more than a single copy's worth is a separate question.

having the law such that its illegal to scan a book and then keep it, but legal to scan it and destroy it - gg no re there, law people retardmaxxed themselves as they tend to do with anything related to digital data.

technology is just a red herring. GTA-level whacky NPCs will have NPC behaviour regardless of what situation you throw them in.

The same "person" that shows absurd behaviour like that, assuming it's not just rage/clickbait, has absurd behaviour in a completely technology disconnected world as well.

The only thing that might differ is that it's not as outwardly obvious. Those behaviours are a result of who they are at a person (whether this be because of genetics and environment, poor soul RNG, or something else).

To that extent all technology does is make it more obvious. Basically the average NPC has more opportunities to reveal themselves as such. It's not indicative of a fundamental problem.

this is true, but in practice the EU and its local governments have a giant issue with incompetence when it comes to the specifics of regulation. it's overregulated and sometimes even in such ways that it doesn't even achieve the protection it seeks to generate, so a net loss in both directions.