HN user
It is a MBA's view of winning
A deeply ironic comment which associates <THING YOU DON'T LIKE> with <GROUP YOU DON'T LIKE> due to complete ignorance about the group. An MBA would never approve a technique with basically unlimited capex. So I hate to break it to you but "bigger weights" is 100% the computer scientist's view of winning because everything is an "abstraction".
Because SAS triangle identity proofs are relatable and I'm trying to make a point...?
could just be a human method for solving problems that evolved because of it's broad applicability but is suboptimal at any given task.
Ya sure let's just posit another random hypothesis about evolutionary biology in order to substantiate the claim that LLMs are intelligent.
Or (bear with me) you can recall your (likely) experience proving stuff like SAS triangle identities and reflect on whether that required intelligence or just computation.
What's more reasonable?
The funniest thing about LLMs is the cognitive dissonance they cause people. People clearly recognize (and bemoan) the fact that LLMs produce derivative breathless prose ie they fundamentally fail at "unstructured creativity" (something the might accurately labeled intelligence) but are then shocked that the same LLMs can do math.
It's reasoning from a flawed premise that math universally requires intelligence and creativity. It does not. Anyone that's proved things via "diagram chasing" can affirm that. The conclusion you should draw is that math (at least the kind they excel at) isn't actually a creative endeavor.
I think you don't understand moat - that's not a moat.
if they were rotting NV wouldn't be advertising the product (nor hiring for it - which they are)
isn't it obviously steinbeck?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Eden_(novel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath (one of the best books i've ever read)
I don't see any reaction here - just a bunch of people reacting to a fun article with judgement and disparagement.
Modern day tech is full of insufferable types that thoroughly enjoy pearl clutching and virtue signaling
It's because it's humid af in the northeast (and all through the East Coast). I moved to CA last year from FL and 75/78 here feels perfectly fine (I can sleep just fine) because it's completely dry. We literally have our windows open all day every day except today when it was like 90 (and tonight it'll be back down to 70 so we'll be able to sleep without AC).
Is your thesis published and at a URL
yes but i'm not going to link it here in order to preserve my anonymity
You should know a serious fraction of folks commenting on these threads
<X to doubt> not because i'm not aware there aren't lots of people with PhDs in tech, but because generally the comments on hn are from outsider wannabes
March 9, 2023
This is a new account?
no competence in.
I have a PhD in ML compilers (one of my papers is cited on the site I linked) and as I mentioned in the previous "discussion" I currently work in FAANG as an ML compiler engineer.
But thanks for playing :)
Hn upvotes the weirdest things. You're talking about polyhedral analysis which emphatically does not work on diophantine forms
apple has invested in training models
https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/introducing-third...
they just suck
an enormous number of people have never taken a literature class and in fact have no idea how to assess tone, diction, rhetorical purpose, etc.
well, as I say
Do you often quote yourself?
I value competence above all else
This is very beginner energy lol. Are you possibly a teenager?
and bullshitting (e.g. using AI to say you used AI) is the opposite of competence.
Your username name is conartist6....
100% correct (anyone on hn for longer than 3 months will recognize that this is exactly the culture here).
In an era of automatic code generation
lol what does this even mean
Waiting for the market to be less insane is somewhat akin to waiting for the s&p500 to drop a decent amount so you can buy in.
lol this is so wrong it's funny - equities go up in price, commodity goods go down in price. the two markets are literally diametrically opposed.
I love the insinuation that I must be an evil prick.
the insinuation is that there is deep, rich, delicious, irony in someone writing this
The program doesn't work for everyone, but it does have a purpose, and it is frustrating when selfish academics bastardize that purpose to give this kind of false impression of the degree.
after giving everyone reading a false impression of what a PhD is worth. ie you sound extremely selfish yourself when you use phrases like
"Maybe you did get that but you aren't using it in your job; if so, then maybe you didn't need that PhD, but that's hardly the fault of the degree."
and
"PhD is not about learning content. It's about picking up research independence, confidence, and a strong capacity for critique."
and
"No, this is precisely what the PhD is supposed to be for. It should be the most challenging topic of your entire early career, or your supervisor wasted your time. You have a handful of years to impress people, so they have to count."
ie ludicrous absolutist terms.
Otherwise, you are in the ivory tower telling others that they shouldn't come in.
...are you a native english speaker? the ivory tower is academia. i am emphatically (as i've been emphasizing for 2 hours now) not in the ivory tower and i advocate for everyone to avoid the god forsaken place no matter what.
Yes, people get FAANG jobs without doing higher education
the vast vast majority of my coworkers have BS/MS. the two best engineers i know (extremely successful ICs) have only a BS. the other PhDs i meet in industry are generally worthless "architects" who can't hack their way out of a paper bag.
EDIT:
it's amazing to me that the conflict of interest here isn't front and center: you're still in academia recruiting students! of course it's critical for you that the dream of academia lives on! if you had any integrity you would have disclaimed your conflict of interest at the outset.
Johns Hopkins Masters in AI (online)
do whichever one of these online MS which permit you to leave off the "online" part (i.e., are awarded through the conventional faculty). i'm not sure johns hopkins does but OMSCS from gatech does.
That's called a garbage supervisor.
yes my advisor was garbage but also
1) my advisor is literally in the top 500 most cited researchers in the world
2) every single other student in systems had the exact same experience
in summary: your "no true scotsman" doesn't work here because by all measures all of these people are the scotsmen.
Immense challenge is suffering
this is facile - torture is suffering, deprivation is suffering, prison is suffering. immense challenge is ... challenge. stop with the exaggerated language please. stop writing these paeans for research. it's not some ethereal pursuit. for a select few it's a calling. for most it's just a shitty job.
find another PhD supervisor please, before it is too late.
bro you are so out of touch it's laughable. there are departments full of your so-called "not true advisors". what do you recommend to the students in these departments who are post-quals and are just now discovering the truth? you recommend to them they what? transfer schools? drop out after 2-3 years of reduced earnings? will you compensate them?
No, this is precisely what the PhD is supposed to be for. It should be the most challenging topic of your entire early career, or your supervisor wasted your time.
again my guy: take a look at literally any top conference and tell me how many papers do truly novel work? as i commented below: i grew up in math where novel work meant a truly original theorem. that kind of quality is 1/1000 in neurips.
you were used as part of a paper mill
did you catch the part where i attend a US T10? how do you square your assessment with that?
isn't what the degree is supposed to be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
stupid is as stupid does
The program doesn't work for everyone, but it does have a purpose
there is literally no program. you're completely full of shit. there is no "standardized phd". every single department around the world completely makes it up to be whatever they want.
it is frustrating when selfish academics bastardize that purpose to give this kind of false impression of the degree.
have you looked at the mirror recently? the frustration comes not from the craven/mercenary individuals who admit their cravenness - it comes from gaslighters like you who claim there's some idealized version of it that exists that everyone supposedly falls short of (hint hint: have you ever heard of this convenient concept of original sin?).
EDIT:
it seems you did not experience what you should have
i got exactly the experience i needed to disabuse me of the illusion that academia was a priesthood in pursuit of truth/knowledge/beauty/whatever. so that was perfect (i will never step foot on another academic campus again and i will warn everyone else off from it too). in addition i got a job in FAANG so that was a nice consolation prize :)
Granted, my PhD was in math, not CS, so I'm sure the experience was different
my BS and MS were in (pure) math (my MS thesis is on convergence of the ito integral...) and my PhD is in CS systems. CS outside of theory is worse than an empirical discipline - it's a "throw spaghetti, lasagna, burgers, caesar salad at the wall and see what sticks" discipline. it bears literally no resemblance to math (pure or applied).
Maybe the problems in CS are easier... Of course, the pace of publication is far slower in math, so I'm sure this is a factor in the choice of problems.
yes and that should tell you everything you need to know - there are kids in my department graduating with 5 first author conference papers (i had "only" 3). how much of those papers do you think is original work really?
do you have a phd? did you get it in the last 10 years? because i have one as well and 100% agree with op - it was worthless. and i got mine from a "world class" school too (US T10).
It's about picking up research independence, confidence, and a strong capacity for critique.
lolol maybe in the days of yore. today it's about pumping out questionable papers that your advisor tells you to pump out and targeting the right conference.
It is supposed to be suffering of a special kind
are you also one of those people who takes cold plunges every morning? this myth is what perpetuates the same horrible relationships with shit advisors. it's not supposed to be suffering. it's supposed to be challenging. there's an enormous difference.
an experience in grinding and radical unproductivity when the problem really is that hard
there are no problems like this in academia (at least not CS) because it's absolutely impractical (re graduation, tenure, etc.) to set out tackling problems which are intractable.
in summary: this entire comment is "phd virtue signaling"
Because a provisional patent is trivial to get and meaningless.
PAW reframes the foundation model from a per-input problem solver into a tool builder: invoked once per function definition, it produces a small reusable artifact whose subsequent calls per function application are cheap and offline.
Umm you can just get the LLM to spit out real functions instead of fuzzy functions and just run those real functions through real interpreters, which is also "cheap" and "offline".
their coworkers generate bad PRs, but they generate good PRs) in the age before LLMs
You think this a clever gotcha but it's not because no one was generating PRs before LLMs.
<laughs in Apple stock>
negate that you have a stack of transforms that relate a point in world space to one on screen space and you want to be able to project from one to the other.
no it doesn't "negate", it's all completely orthogonal (pun) or irrelevant. like for real just please take a look at
https://docs.pytorch.org/docs/2.12/nn.html
and tell me which operators you're imagining have any resemblance with typical graphics linear algebra.
like when you people make such claims do you really have anything concrete in mind or just hype?