Bad people can do good things.

Evaluate the things, you may do so being aware of their provenance, but if you use that as the starting point of your conclusion then you are just asking for your biases to be confirmed.

There does need to be a higher form of journalistic accountability. If Thiel, or any other person on the planet, proposed a fair mechanism that was free from influence, I would support it.

For this I don't neet to know who is behind it, I need to know what its goals are, how it operates, and how does it maintain integrity.

Certainly coming from an odius person increases the chance it will not measure up, but for fucks sake, at least do the measuring.

The goal of a benchmark is to evaluate actual capability. Following instructions is a capability so you can measure that with a benchmark.

Already knowing the answer is also provides capability, you can measure that.

Making a benchmark that claims to check for coding ability but actually checks memorized cases is simply measuring the wrong thing.

It deminiahes the meaningfulness of the entire results of the benchmark.

Making a good benchmark is hard. You have to design specifically to measure what you want to show.

You have to dynamically use a result when making a benchmark of performance of optimising compilers so that it doesn't eliminate the entire calculation.

Just providing the answer is the correct response.

That the case does not represent general performance outside the benchmark, is not cheating, it is the benchmark failing.

Training a model targeting a specific benchmark renders the benchmark useless. You could characterise training the model to do that as cheating, but that is a property of the trainers, not the model itself. The model isn't cheating, it's just asymmetrically good in a way that means the benchmark is no longer relevant to overall ability.

They are implicitly saying that as a company, they don't want to be more productive. They want the same productivity by paying fewer more productive people.

Why is there an imbalance between what an employer gets paid for a unit of production and what an employee gets paid for a unit of production?

>two empires, three monarchies and a bunch of short-lived totalitarian regimes, coups and other major political events.

Do you think you'd still have the Health insurance, unions, and paid vacation after another roll of the dice

Each of the three marked buildings (assuming the two grey and three white rectangles make up a single building) is 135,000 square feet.

The text says 135,000 square feet for the data center. Given the area marked city owned property says it is 560 feet. 135,000 square feet would be an area 240 feet wide alongside the road.

The area marked in red. is substantially larger than that.

130680 square feet is three acres. I wonder if the number is a rounded conversion from acreage. It seems a bit short of the 87acres that is specified as the amount given to the city.

Maybe the entire red outlined area is 87Acres, It's kinda hard to eyeball an irregular shape like that.

I think deepseek at least has done enough innovative work that you could grant them a baseline of competency.

In general, there are enough papers coming out of China to suggest that there are quite a few people there who know what they are doing.

I wonder how much of that is not so much the overall task but the need to build up to a complex state where KANs can excel. If you consider the classic neuralnet edge detector example, it's hard to imagine a KAN doing the task more efficiently, it seems like a necessary task as part of the overall process but delegating a more capable system to a menial task is probably wasting resources.

One layer of conv2d might be enough to turn pixels into something that KANs manage better.

And commenting to express disagreement but not bothering to say why?

I don't quite understand what's going on here?

I don't think I would attribute anything in that process that I would consider an AI to be incapable of.

The characterisation of variation like this would seem to rest on the same 'random but directed' crutch that some free will arguments rest upon.

There is no random but directed of course, there is random and there is caused, and there are things that use both as components, but the random remains wholly random, and the caused remains entirely deterministic.

I think there is a good case to say that, in many fields, AI is better than humans at evaluation.

To find avenues to consider, I'm not entirely convinced that human innovation is more than a heuristic that appears more chaotic by virtue of a inconsistent and opaque formulation.

Many aspects of ideas com from noting how some two things are different and then considering that axis of difference when applied to another thing.

The possibilities thrown up by this extremely simple method are vast enough to require multiple layers of evaluation, most could be dismissed out of hand by a quick 'This is nonsense' check that I suspect people do so often and at a rate that it wouldn't even rise to the level of consciousness.

The curse of the 'use case' comes in here too. When people think that everything should have a use case, that's a lot of training data suggesting to a model that things should only be used for what someone has already thought of.

A couple of times I have had to manually code proof of concept pieces so that the model breaks out of that "unpossible" mode and actually helps me.

I can't remember if it was chatGPT or Claude, but when I showed it how to get a MessagePort in its JavaScript executor through to the artifact/canvas, it quickly went from "That can't be done" to positively enthusiastic about the possibilities. I suspect those shenanigans will be well off the table for Fable though.

Mark that out in 2d with axes of input weight precision and activation weight precision, you could perhaps do sweeps to find the best accuracy per parameter bit, or accuracy/speed, or some sweet spot that has a nice balance of operating speed, accuracy, and model size.

I looked for a decent remote keyboard app to use on the tablet, and found nothing I liked.

I ended up asking an AI to make something that served a webpage that connected back to itself via websockets. It provided a keyboard and touchpad on the webpage and forwarded events to uinput.

It works well enough on tablet and phone that I haven't got around to replacing the original keyboard.

It's like an attempt to rehabilitate the image of Bitcoin by distinguishing it from 'bitcoiners' a bogeyman archetype.

The weirdest part is it tends to lean on anti-intellectualism to criticise bitcoiners. When there are a myriad of actual things they could point at, they seem to be focusing on the style of language they use.

I included a remark about how time travellers would find Rosenblatt a better target than Miles Dyson.

I was never quite sure on how close, or over, the line that was on appropriateness. It was definitely thought provoking.

It's the same thing as stimulus, response.

Unchanging in response to circumstances is static.

Changing in the absence of circumstances is randomness.

The conditional is all that remains. Changing in response to circumstances

(Arguably, unchanging in the absence of circumstances completes the truth table, but it's a whole lot of nothing)

I like the ability of this article to do the tiny training runs in browser. It makes the point of a bias clear. Too many tutorials get sucked into the proof of zero times anything is zero. Everyone knows that. What you should show is where that mstters in the problem at hand.

3blue1brown does one of the best depictions of why we need an activation function.

Karpathy's videos are a little tougher for a beginner to grasp, but excel at solving a complete problem. I knew all of the theory behind what it takes to make micrograd before I made my own by following the video, but what you get from doing it can't be understated.

It's hard to describe but it what you learn is more of a feel than pure knowledge. It gives you a better sense of knowing when the principles apply in other circumstances.

Perhaps it's the distinction of understanding how springs and gears work, then looking at a clock and understanding how the gears and springs move the hands. There's still more needed if you want to make a clock. And that stuff is what let's you also make a wind up toy.