V0ldek

joined 1 year ago
[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think Harry was much of a genius, unless you mean Harriezer from MoR in which case lol, lmao

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Working in the field of genetics is a bizarre experience

How the fuck would you know that, mate? You don't even have a degree in your field, which, let me remind you, is (allegedly) computer science. Has Yud ever been near an actual genetics professor?

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 6 points 4 months ago

I feel coding people like they’re software

Jesus christ can you imagine segfaulting someone's kidney

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 2 points 4 months ago

It's reacting to the presentation, not you specifically. I think many of the other comments hit on how he goes waaay too far in his criticism, but I wouldn't have written what I wrote if it wasn't a wider sentiment I encountered a few times already.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The attitude to theoretical computer science re quantum is really weird. Some people act as if "I can't run it now therefore it's garbage" which is just such a nonsense approach to any kind of theoretical work.

Turing wrote his seminal paper in 1936, over 10 years before we invented transistors. Most of CS theory was developed way before computers were proliferated. A lot of research into ML was done way before we had enough data and computational power to actually run e.g. neural networks.

Theoretical CS doesn't need to be recent, it doesn't need to run, and it's not shackled to the current engineering state of the art, and all of that is good and by design. Let the theoreticians write their fucking theorems. No one writing a theoretical paper makes any kinds of promises that the described algorithm will EVER be run on anything. Quantum complexity theory, for example was developed in the nineties, there was NO quantum computer then, no one was even envisioning a quantum computation happening in physical reality. Shor's algorithm was devised BEFORE THAT, before we even had the necessary tools to describe its complexity.

I find the line of argumentation "this is worthless because we don't know a quantum computer is engineeringly feasible"

  1. Insulting,
  2. Stupid,
  3. Lacking whimsy,
  4. Unscientific at its core.
[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The reason is that any government mandated ID is clearly the Mark of the Beast and will be used to bring upon a thousand years of darkness.

You think that's fringe nonsense and you'd be right on the nonsense part, but that's literally what Ronny Reagan said while he was president

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 3 points 4 months ago (5 children)

1970s probably?

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 1 points 4 months ago

Self-reporting studies are, in fact, studies.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 8 points 4 months ago

In case of the revolutionary LLM technology we have quality in = garbage out also!

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

a thermodynamics startup

what

Like what do they do, find ways to increase entropy faster? Or are they bootstrapping thermodynamics from first principles to disrupt the field of physics with blockchain-powered quantum synergy

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 7 points 4 months ago

Correct answers are correct answers. The only thing LLMs typically are bad at, are things that are seldom discussed or have some ambiguity behind them.

Lol what, how many questions you ask in your life are entirely unambiguous and devoid of nuance? That sounds like a you issue.

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 4 points 4 months ago

but i still think that it’s a little suspect on the grounds that we have no idea how many times they had to restart training due to the model borking, other experiments and hidden cost

Oh ye, I totally agree on this one. This entire genAI enterprise insults me on a fundamental level as a CS researcher, there's zero transparency or reproducibility, no one reviews these claims, it's a complete shitshow from terrible, terrible benchmarks, through shoddy methodology, up to untestable and bonkers claims.

I have zero good faith for the press, though, they're experts in painting any and all tech claims in the best light possible like their lives fucking depend on it. We wouldn't be where we are right now if anyone at any "reputable" newspaper like WSJ asked one (1) question to Sam Altman like 3 years ago.

view more: ‹ prev next ›