im3w1l

The integers are not a subset of the rationals. They are entirely different constructions, but there is an isomorphism between integers and a subset of the rationals that preserves the integers' ring structure within that subset of the rationals and a few other aesthetic concerns.

This actually strikes me as a very formal perspective.

Considering it from an informal perspective, it's a bit more fuzzy isn't it. As you say there are many isomorphic things, and when we say The Integers it's not actually clear which one of them we mean. Maybe we mean one of them today and another tomorrow. Often times it doesn't matter, and so we don't clarify the question.

Like you could imagine defining the BootstrapNaturals then the BootstrapIntegers then the BootstrapRationals then use them to define the Reals. And then say that the Naturals, Integers and Rationals are defined as subsets of the Reals. This would be one way to put the common view of the Naturals as being a subset of the Reals on a solid formal foundation. It's rarely done ig because it's seen as obviously unproblematic to be a bit handwavy.

Another criticism of the common construction of numbers we could pose, inspired by object oriented programming, is that they fail at "information hiding". In programming an object should ideally not expose its internals. But in mathematics we may define 0 as say the empty set, making set operations on numbers syntactically valid which is kinda strange.

But yeah I think everyone has a sort of implicit understanding that 0 isn't actually the empty set. That it's merely a sort of hmm... thought experiment? That considering it 0 is a limited time offer, for the duration of the definition phase?

Maybe we come back to the isomorphism after all. "The natural numbers are something isomorphic to this set stuff I will now do"

I think the nature of mathematics is an interesting question without one clean answer. To present a radically different view of mathematics:

It's a game of string transformations, where the goal is to produce specific strings given a set of rules.

The (syntactically valid) strings would correspond to statements, a producible string a theorem, and the production the proof.

This might work really well in practice idk, but I think it's not allowed by big O to pick a maximum supported size. Otherwise you could just make a lookup table. Your algorithm must be ready for anything.

I think the problem comes when you do a multiplication and you need more primes for uniqueness.

I think you could solve homelessness really simple by allowing something like a favela. It will be an eyesore so pick an area out of sight of rich people. Then split it into like idk 200sqft plots. Give everyone enough corrugated steel to build a primitive shelter. Have like a central sanitation place with a shitton of toilets and showers.

One simple thing that LLM's doesn't have to do is use a calling convention. Compilers need to use them, at least to some extent because it's not known at compile time who will link against this function in the future. Humans kinda need them because it's a lot of mental load when everything is custom. But for a sufficiently smart llm, noticing a register doesn't need to be preserved because there is only two callers and neither of them care about it might be doable.

Doesn't that mean that if you have a slam dunk case you can get a super expensive lawyer just to run up costs as much as possible? Hell, could you ask your friend to be your legal representative and have him charge you a gorillion dollar in legal fees? Then when you win you split the loot?

My tinfoil hat says this isn't "spontaneous grassroots activism". Someone made this happen that benefits from this. Maybe a country that wants to mess with the Netherlands. Hell, it could even be a competing tech company.

I hope they look very carefully how this was organized, where the money came from.

Your whole strategy basically involves having more compute than the other guy so you can look one step further. And yeah in an AI world having more compute or some exclusive data seem like obvious ways to get a leg up.

Firefox is software rendered on linux-nvidia which leads to a bizarre situation of simple web animations lagging on decent computers.

While that's true I think that once the feed has been observed in a certain way the advantages of stability outweigh the advantages of showing a tweaked version the second time it is loaded.

Why is the list constantly changing anyway?

Bad people in control of AI is incredibly dangerous.

Unix philosophy clearly favors and privileges certain methods of composition and interoperation. C-calls, program invocation, files and sockets/pipes. Calls inside various vms like lisp, java, python or wasm are not among those.

It's may seem like a nitpick but I think it's a whole different way off looking at it to phrase it as "applying a bugfix that changed the order of allocations at startup exposed memory corruption somewhere else"

I do think there is something to be said for both perspectives, especially for code that is extremely critical. With sufficient testing and determinism maybe you can actually make sure that dormant issues stay dormant meaning there is real value in being change-averse. Still it's a very precarious situation having a known memory corruption hoping it's the testing has made sure its benign in practice.

There is a pretty significant chance that ours will be a starfaring civilization and that our children will reshape the very heavens.

While the idea of using RLE with implicit swapping is the same, everything else is different. I'm not sure it's better in this case. One thing my version did is that it had explicit linebreaks, this approach was chosen as the map in the article had lines of varying lengths. If you don't now you have to accomplish that some other way, e.g. explicitly fill the line up with spaces and some mechanism of communicating the width of the image.

I also think using a varint encoding is a big win over fixed-width.

Representation for this I came up with: Allocate one magic number for "start line with space" another for "start line with asterisk" then any other number means this many of the current character and then swap character.

Then it's a matter of picking a suitable way to encode numbers into bits.

I came up with groups of four bits. If the high bit is not set that is the number, if it is set then read an additional group of four bits, and interpret as a biased 7 bit number. This came out to 400 bytes not including decompressor.

I didn't mean it in the literal sense more like the AI is telling you do this do this do this do that and you relaying what happened and what you saw over text.

I see this text as more open ended than a warning. It's a description of a possible future for us to contemplate. Does it have good points does it have bad points? Being satire, the protagonist is a strawman of course, but doesn't she also have some good points? It's not easy to tell where exactly the author stands where, the true argument stops and the satire begins. That's not necessarily a flaw because it doesn't actually really matter where the author stands for our ability to discuss the subject.

Scientist as prompter? Yes it seems fairly likely. But to what extent and how quickly will it happen? Surely scientists will still be able to at least give an outline of "their" work even in the future? Maybe?

Otherwise maybe we it will be a sort of inversion of control, where the language model is the supervisor, and the humans in the loop are more like research assistants doing the dirty work? Instead of a human wearing an exoskeleton, an AI wearing a biological exoskeleton? But this can only be a temporary state of affairs as we won't be needed for that forever.

A scientific project without human involvement? If a paper is published in a journal and no human wrote it and no human read it, is it really science? Does it really advance knowledge. Probably?

Animals have also been hunted to extinction though so I think it's more fair to say it can go either way.

Distribution is trivially easy these days. All publishing does is say "yup, this is some legit science alright". It's a stamp of approval. Blessed by the publisher. To get this blessing you have to fulfil a set of requirements ranging from promoting good science to "thats just how its done, thats how we always done it" to the whims of a particular reviewer. You play the game you get the prize. But if you don't need the prize then you don't need to play.

If you have something so truly revolutionary that everyone can see with their own two eyes how awesome it is you don't have to rely on a middleman to bless it. "Ok your loss"

Sorry I completely messed up in communicating my point: That it would be nice if the compiler would do it for us automatically in the many simple cases. That's what I tried to say, but didn't say, when I said it could matter fixing it everywhere.

So one thing I thought of when reading this is that very often it is known ahead of time (at runtime or even compile-time) how many push_backs will be done. The programmer could make a reserve call but doesn't bother since the efficiency gain is minimal.

The gain is minimal for doing this optimization at one location. But doing it everywhere, that could matter. Pushing back in a loop could maybe be optimized to a single allocation and a memcopy.

I agree with you and disagree. Like these days expectations of software are through the floor. We expect them to be greedy assholes taking all data they can on the downlow. So why did this particular thing make a big splash? Two possibilities it's astroturfed by chinese labs or it speaks to our anxietes regarding AI. We worry that the AI doesn't serve our interests but rather the interests of the creator. That the advice we get may subtly flawed to sabotage us should we try to do the wrong thing. That the not even the creator is in control and the AI is just doing its own thing.

So any covert bullshittery hits hard.

That's one way to look at it, but imo firefox shouldnt crash no matter how malformed the data is.

What is the input to the ML algorithm? Does it know the surrounding context so that it has a chance to deduce "if this stroke is slightly longer then the end result will be idiomatic greek and latin"?

Two things to consider: The recommended levels are established based on "good enough for 95% of people". That means that quite a lot of people can get by with less than the recommendation. Furthermore, being deficient is not a binary. If you are just a little bit deficient you may have very mild symptoms.

Many games operate on a rock-paper-scissor system though, and even if rock is perhaps a bit stronger than it should be, what that actually means is that it wins more against scissor than it loses to paper, but it still loses against paper.