Hacker News: resource0x

New comment by resource0x in "Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]"

resource0x — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 22:52:48 +0000

Playing the devil's advocate here. Suppose I use model A to do all heavy lifting (e.g. generating a bunch of good ideas) and then I go to the model B to complete the formalization. Accoring to a weird (unfair) tradition in math, the honors are attributed to the "last guy", which in this case is model B. That might have been a scenario OpenAI tried to avert. (Just a speculation)

Small changes in the non-coding part of the genome have a key role

resource0x — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 17:57:37 +0000

Article URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01120-8

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47755660

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

New comment by resource0x in "AI is different"

resource0x — Sat, 16 Aug 2025 19:12:02 +0000

> There are many of them on youtube.

Not as many as on HN. "Influencers" have agendas and the stream of income, or other self-interest. HN always comes off as a monolith, on any subject. Counter-arguments get ignored and downvoted to oblivion.

New comment by resource0x in "'Cosmic radio' detector could discover dark matter within 15 years"

resource0x — Sat, 19 Apr 2025 15:31:56 +0000

Dark matter is a pseudo-scientific variant of the "God of the gaps". Rather of acknowledging an obvious (default) assumption that the laws of Universe (including all "constants") depend on local conditions, the community prefers spending inordinate amounts of money on nebulous ideas.

New comment by resource0x in "AI 2027"

resource0x — Fri, 04 Apr 2025 15:15:53 +0000

Every time NVDA/goog/msft tanks, we see these kinds of articles.

New comment by resource0x in "UCSD: Large Language Models Pass the Turing Test"

resource0x — Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:32:11 +0000

Here's a comprehensive review of Turing's argument

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/#:~:text=The%...

(Spoiler: the issue is subtle :-))

New comment by resource0x in "C. Elegans: The worm that no computer scientist can crack"

resource0x — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:08:10 +0000

Why did I assume someone has written an essay? Because he said so! Quoting:

> I do like his ideas (and I wrote similar things about platonic forms elsewhere)

What is dismissive about my interest to his write-up? (I'm sure it was a misunderstanding on your part, you don't need to apologize :-))

New comment by resource0x in "C. Elegans: The worm that no computer scientist can crack"

resource0x — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:32:07 +0000

The ontological status of the equations is still unclear. BTW, if you can provide a link to your own essay, I would be interested :-)

New comment by resource0x in "C. Elegans: The worm that no computer scientist can crack"

resource0x — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 12:49:37 +0000

But the equation is a platonic form! Otherwise, you will be introducing a third concept, which is unnecessary b/c it has no advantage over the traditional notion of "platonic form".

> It's an attractive framework, but as almost everything in philosophy it can easily be challenged.

Michael is aware of it. He insists that every speculation has to be experimentally tested. But no experiment of this kind will constitute a "proof" - someone can always "challenge" it. This is no different from a physical theory: every interpretation of QM is challenged by someone. :-)

New comment by resource0x in "C. Elegans: The worm that no computer scientist can crack"

resource0x — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 00:50:33 +0000

Please read this essay and make your own conclusions. (He rejects physicalism in no uncertain terms). https://thoughtforms.life/platonic-space-where-cognitive-and...

New comment by resource0x in "C. Elegans: The worm that no computer scientist can crack"

resource0x — Sun, 30 Mar 2025 20:37:06 +0000

By any chance, have you watched the videos from the recent conference? https://ctr4process.org/conference/metaphysics-and-the-matte...

New comment by resource0x in "C. Elegans: The worm that no computer scientist can crack"

resource0x — Sun, 30 Mar 2025 19:03:57 +0000

This podcast will be a shocking experience for anyone who still holds reductionist views on life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8iFtaltX-s

Michael Levin's channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+levin+a...

His blog: https://thoughtforms.life/

New comment by resource0x in "Tracing the thoughts of a large language model"

resource0x — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:37:40 +0000

In technology in general, this is a typical state of affairs. No one knows how electric current works, which doesn't stop anyone from using electric devices. In programming... it depends. You can run some simulation of a complex system no one understands (like the ecosystem, financial system) and get something interesting. Sometimes it agrees with reality, sometimes it doesn't. :-)

New comment by resource0x in "NotaGen: Symbolic Music Generation"

resource0x — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 02:44:19 +0000

Please listen to the above pieces once a day (it will take only 4 minutes) for 10 days. Then, while speaking about music, you will sound pretensious to your friends. Please try. (I can send more. This will include jazz certainly. And Beatles... and others. You have to put some effort into it, it will pay off).

New comment by resource0x in "NotaGen: Symbolic Music Generation"

resource0x — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 01:45:03 +0000

An impressive achievement indeed. That's exactly what one'd expect from LLM. If someone wants to see/hear what real music is, listen to this, just to get a reference point. This will make you cry. Literally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGaruN5VZPA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq3adNifZe8

New comment by resource0x in "GPT-4.5"

resource0x — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:46:52 +0000

Pursuing AGI? What method do they use to pursue something that no one knows what it is? They will keep saying they are pursuing AGI as long as there's a buyer for their BS.

New comment by resource0x in "GPT-4.5"

resource0x — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 21:29:42 +0000

breakthrough in biology

New comment by resource0x in "Math Academy, part 1: My eigenvector embarassment"

resource0x — Sat, 22 Feb 2025 04:04:20 +0000

Very true. But the same applies to teaching. Mathematicians don't know where even to begin - for some of them, it's all too obvious. But the same happens with any subject. Someone proposes a certain design - but after many (20... 30... 40) years in business, you feel the design won't ever work, and try to explain, and fail because you don't know where to begin.

New comment by resource0x in "Math Academy, part 1: My eigenvector embarassment"

resource0x — Sat, 22 Feb 2025 03:55:55 +0000

Not yet, but now I will, just out of curiosity. There's a problem with mathematicians teaching the subject. After all, the youtube lectures were also given by mathematicians. In attempt to make things "accessible", they de-emphasize the algebraic part of the subject and replace it with... I don't know what. The common theme is to consider only R^n. That's not what it's about. Maybe Math Academy course is different though.

New comment by resource0x in "Math Academy, part 1: My eigenvector embarassment"

resource0x — Sat, 22 Feb 2025 03:22:47 +0000

As a math major, I scored a perfect 100 on my Linear Algebra exam in 1974. However, just two days later, I couldn't recall a single thing.

A few years ago, with ample free time, I decided to refresh my (nonexistent) memory by watching online linear algebra lectures from various professors. I was surprised by their poor quality. They lacked motivation and intuition. Khan Academy offered no improvement. Then, someone recommended Linear Algebra Done Right (LADR). I read it three times, and by the third iteration, I finally began to appreciate the beauty of the theory. Linear algebra is a purely algebraic theory; visual aids are of limited help. In short, if you have the time, I recommend reading LADR. Otherwise, don't bother.