HN user
Email: maxime.caron AT gmail.com
Actually not surprised. I guess this is for the same reason “say it twice” [1] is working. Because LLm are trained as causal language model, past token cannot attend to future token. One copy of the layer set solve this. [1]https://arxiv.org/html/2512.14982v1
this is CUDA backend to MLX not MLX backend for CUDA!
Can you give more detail on what you mean by it can be a valuable experience with the right people around to help.
My son (7 years old) is gifted in Math and as a parent I find it extremely hard to decide how much I should push him (register him to math competition, weekend math club ...) and how much I should just let him get 100% on exam and not accelerate the learning.
is it only me or this completely miss all the recent research on causal inference using causal graphical model ?
Des os is the best graphic calculator ever built. And its amazing it has un directly in your browser or without internet on your phone.
Just wish it was open source :-)
Anyone know of an open source library like 3blue1brown Manim library that can work run client side in the web browser like Desmos ?
how does this compare to ESP32-S3-BOX-3B ?
Thanks a lot for writing that. I agree 100% with you.
But I always wondered how polymath like Leonard davinci and Isaac newton that are excellent in many area are possible.
Is MIT class also taught by outsourced instructor instead of MIT instructor?
Redis Sentinel provides high availability and monitoring for Redis, but it does not guarantee strong consistency.
Linearizability requires that once a write is acknowledged, all subsequent reads should reflect that write.
if min-replicas-to-write is set to the number of Redis replica then if a single node goes down you won't be able to do any write (take lock or release lock).
if min-replicas-to-write is set to any number smaller than the total number or Redis replica some replica could still be lagging because of Asynchronous replication.
Also when a replica acknowledges a write in Redis, it means that the write has been received and logged by the replica, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the write has been fully processed and applied to the data set.
This mean reading from replica that acknowledges a write from master might still return the Old value for the Key.
Paxos and Raft are consensus algorithms that provide certain guarantees and capabilities that a master-slave system with synchronous replication, such as PostgreSQL, cannot offer.
These algorithms ensure that a majority of nodes (a quorum) must agree on any proposed chAnge. This agreement guarantees that once a decision is made (e.g., to commit a transaction), it is final and consistent across all nodes. This strong consistency is critical in distributed systems to avoid split-brain scenarios.
This is easily caused by :
1-network partition
2-latency issues.
3-Async failover (2 nodes think they are the master)
4-replica lag (some but not all replica acknowledged the write) while master send confirmation to client
Redis is a very bad store for a distributed lock but Postgres is only slightly better.
What you truly need is something like ZooKeeper and etcd that are designed to achieve distributed consensus using algorithms like Paxos or Raft.
This ensures strong consistency and reliability in a distributed system, making them ideal for tasks like leader election, configuration management, and lease management where consistency across nodes is critical.
But inside on epoch there is a lot of duplication already.
By duplication I mean if context length is N there is many sequence of N word that are not unique.
Could not try it. Saying valid institutional or company email address.
It doesn’t recognize my university.
It “work” but the LLM having to use the calculator mean the LLM doesn’t understand arithmetic enough and doesn’t know how to use an follow a set of step (algorithm ) natively to find the answer for bug numbers.
I believe this could be fixed and is worth fixing. Because it’s the only way LLM will be able to help math and physic researcher write proof and make real scientific progress
Just discovered e-graph recently and I have a good understanding of compiler from taking compiler class at university.
I would like to understand why you say e-graph would need control-flow to be revamped.
Do you have anything I could read on it ?
What do you mean by close to CNN?
What is your architecture? Is it just a fully connected layer of chebyshev?
Given that Alice has 13 brothers and 31 sisters, we can update the Prolog program with this information. We need to adjust the fact about Alice's siblings and then use the rule to calculate the number of sisters her brothers have.
Here is the updated program:
```prolog % Facts siblings(alice, 13, 31). % Alice has 13 brothers and 31 sisters
% Rules % Alice's brothers have M + 1 sisters, since Alice is also their sister. sisters_of_brother(TotalSisters) :- siblings(alice, _, M), TotalSisters is M + 1.
% Initialization goal :- initialization(main).
% Predicate to find and print the total number of sisters Alice's brothers have main :- sisters_of_brother(TotalSisters), writeln(TotalSisters). ```
In this program, the fact `siblings(alice, 13, 31)` represents that Alice has 13 brothers and 31 sisters. The rule `sisters_of_brother(TotalSisters)` calculates the total number of sisters that Alice's brothers have by adding 1 to the number of sisters Alice has (since Alice is also their sister).
When we run this program, it will print the total number of sisters Alice's brothers have:
1. Alice has 31 sisters. 2. Each of Alice's brothers will also consider Alice as a sister. 3. Therefore, each brother has 31 + 1 = 32 sisters.
The output of the program will be:
``` 32 ```
Thus, Alice's brothers have 32 sisters.
Asking gpt to first output prolog program seem to 100% fix it!
Given that Alice has 13 brothers and 31 sisters, we can update the Prolog program with this information. We need to adjust the fact about Alice's siblings and then use the rule to calculate the number of sisters her brothers have.
Here is the updated program:
```prolog % Facts siblings(alice, 13, 31). % Alice has 13 brothers and 31 sisters
% Rules % Alice's brothers have M + 1 sisters, since Alice is also their sister. sisters_of_brother(TotalSisters) :- siblings(alice, _, M), TotalSisters is M + 1.
% Initialization goal :- initialization(main).
% Predicate to find and print the total number of sisters Alice's brothers have main :- sisters_of_brother(TotalSisters), writeln(TotalSisters). ```
In this program, the fact `siblings(alice, 13, 31)` represents that Alice has 13 brothers and 31 sisters. The rule `sisters_of_brother(TotalSisters)` calculates the total number of sisters that Alice's brothers have by adding 1 to the number of sisters Alice has (since Alice is also their sister).
When we run this program, it will print the total number of sisters Alice's brothers have:
1. Alice has 31 sisters. 2. Each of Alice's brothers will also consider Alice as a sister. 3. Therefore, each brother has 31 + 1 = 32 sisters.
The output of the program will be:
``` 32 ```
Thus, Alice's brothers have 32 sisters.
What do you mean by simplest in term of optimization?
I get it find solution that are easy for SGD or Adam optimizer to find.
But why would such solution be less simple than other ?
Where is the code for it ?
It seems it has been done before:
"Syntax-Aware Transformer Models for Neural Machine Translation" by Yang et al. (2019). This model enhances the transformer architecture with syntax-aware attention mechanisms that consider dependency parse trees.
Context-Aware Neural Machine Translation Learns Anaphora Resolution" by Bawden et al. (2018). This paper explores integrating context and syntax into neural machine translation models.
Why not apply same concept every time a word is split into more than one token?
Basically if a word contain a Prefix, suffix or root word. We could have a token position relative to the start of the word in the embedding.
Forest are good at classification but they cannot leverage pre-training on unclassified data.
As a parent myself I see this happening daily.
Teacher public shaming my kids for having pretzel in his lunch saying it’s not healthy.
Then later the same day the school give all the kids crackers as snack :-)
Or teachers spending 2 hours telling kids which brand of soap or shampoo they should buy and which brand they should avoid.
Or teacher giving a 1 hour talk saying they should open a checking accounts at a particular credit union.
For some reason new teacher are not afraid to brainwash kids with their own personal agenda.
Author claim " you can’t reinforce understanding.". But I can think of 2 counterexample: -A student that does't understand statistics or calculus then do a bunch of exercise at home and suddenly understand the concept.
-Or a student spend 1 hours memorizing all the geography location or date for an history class.
In EF line expression you can easily specify which navigation should be Eager loaded.
var customersWithOrderDetail = context.Customers.Include("Orders").ToList();
Would generate :
SELECT * FROM Customers JOIN Orders ON Customers.Id = Orders.CustomerId
Please Enlighten me because this sound exactly like what sales is.
Like being real estate agent are just like car salesmen that happen to sell house instead of car. They show you the product try to use your emotion to manipulate you into buying it and collect a commission :-)
We are talking about university teacher. They are definitely the one writing and grading the exams.
Right I guess I am not familiar how automated Benchmarks for LLM work. I assumed to decide if an LLM answer was good required Human Evaluation.