HN user

macilacilove

271 karma
Posts1
Comments129
View on HN

If there is a 'god equation' it will almost certainly include a+b=c because we use it all the time to describe "diverse biological systems with vast implementation constraints".

This article is lacking originality and insight to such degree that I susupect it is patentable.

Most people cannot hold themselves (or their loved ones) accountable because we love ourselves and accept any excuse at all. This is the main appeal of personal trainers imo, to tell you to do what you already know you should.

Great idea. Also, thank you for making it human.

There are bosons that carry charges and/or mass like the weak bosons and the gluons. There is nothing in principle about bosons that would make them incapable of building logic gates out of them.

Some advanced civilization (future us) may use them. Even photons interact with each other a little bit due to QED.

I will submit a request for exception/deeper review to the vendor that flagged the exe. I can also offer a full refund and reversal of the sale if you can not make use of the software at the moment due to your security concern. The exe and the installer are signed by the company I established for the project Refractify LLC.

Thank you, 1. As long as the myopia is progressing there is an opportunity to slow that and avoid complications of high myopia. While screen altering may in principle go beyond the effectiveness of optical devices for myopia control as we can provide arbitrary input to the retinal neural network, realistically myopia reversal for adult humans is not considered achieveable. Intervention should ideally be started as soon as possible. In fact there is the possibility of delaying the onset of myopia or fully preventing it for some future generations, but obviously we are a long way off from there in terms of clinical studies.

2. I think undercorrection is somewhat related. I have not yet read the study you linked, I usually refer to this review for undercorrection. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9213207/ I think it would be possible to achieve some results that way as some of the studies from the review suggest, but in practice it is difficult to precisely control the amount of myopic defocus on the retina that you get that way. Most of the time you get no myopic defocus at all due to accomodation and with strong undercorrection you risk losing the visual cues to the sign of defocus, which results in deprivation myopia. I think this is the reason that MiSight contact lenses are known to be effective, while naive undercorrection has mixed results at best.

If you induce myopic defocus by plus lenses you create an urge to move the screen closer, which removes the effect. We need to achieve the right defocus on the retina. Wheres with the software solution you can not "cheat" by moving closer.

I work on such a project. It projects myopic defocus on the screen based on longitudinal chromatic aberration. The project is in pre-clinical stage. You can try it out at https://refractify.io/ . It is aimed at recreating the visual myopic defocus signal that makes lens based myopia control techniques work. There are some promising results on animal myopia models.

I mean, currently you have to wait for a human to summarize a book, before you can read an llm rephrasing of that summary. Or you have to buy the book and pass it to the llm employing some tricks to avoid reunning out of context length.

Most importantly due to the context length not being long enough. If the context length was long enough, it is possible that they could do it with clever training. I only trained much smaller language models though.

Current LLMs can not summarize books even if they are in their training set. It is only possible if the training set also includes human summaries.

Yep, heat is heat. If you manage to swap in your hardware for grandma's electric heater, you have free electricity for whatever you do.

But you need to make sure that the hardware is operated for sufficient time to pay for itself. Without end users harvesting your hw, data.

I think there can be a business to be made here, but it is not trivial at all.

The real invention is having a model that converges, does not lose the gradients, and having a framework to reliably train lots of parameters. Imo it is not historically accurate that next token prediction is the big invention. Some language models predict blanked tokens in the middle of sentences that are modern and interesting, and old language models like rnn-s are being used for quite some time, predicting next tokens one by one.

Regular people talk illegal things on messenger all the time, and if law enforcement gets addicted to sweet data requests, users will flee to wherever.

E2E messaging is a better product. Offering it free (at a loss) makes it hard to beat.

What's more, some major govts may be prompted to ban E2E, so they keep their data and kill Signal and others, while they are the 'good guys'.

FB can probably create a 99% accurate ad profile on you with just metadata, likes and tracking you on the web. If not they can push local profiling models on your phone.

With all that said, I still think it is a genuinely good thing for humanity as it is now, and I am cautiously optimistic.