Isinlor

It already is illegal. Just no regulatory body made a crackdown on it, not yet at least.

There are comets in space, so there is water and water can be made into propellant.

Ceres also seems to have a lot of water: https://astronomy.com/news/2020/08/ceres-an-ocean-world-in-t...

The point of the paper is to show that NN can still learn long after fully memorizing the train dataset.

This behavior goes against current paradigm of thinking about training NNs. It is just very unexpected, similarly as double descent is unexpected from classical statistics point of view that more parameters lead to more over-fitting.

They could have split validation test set into validation and test sets, but I don't know what that would achieve in their case.

Fig. 1 center shows different train / validate splits. Fig 2. shows a swoop between different optimization algorithms if you are concerned about hyperparameters over-fitting.

But to me really interesting is the Fig 3. that shows that NN learned the structure of the problem.

Sure:

Deep Symbolic Regression for Recurrent Sequences https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.04600

(Interactive demo: http://recur-env.eba-rm3fchmn.us-east-2.elasticbeanstalk.com... )

Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasets https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02177

Both of these models can generalize to numbers it have not seen.

Take a look at this paper:

Deep Symbolic Regression for Recurrent Sequences https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.04600

If you look at embedding visualization it is very clear that the model learns order of numbers.

(Interactive demo: http://recur-env.eba-rm3fchmn.us-east-2.elasticbeanstalk.com... )

There is also:

Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasets https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02177

Again, looking at visualizations the model very clearly grasps the structure of the function it models.

How would you test if it grasped the concept?

For people asking why to go to the Moon or Mars:

The movie Avatar made in box office $2.9B. This is exactly the same amount of money as SpaceX asked for the Moon landing - $2.9B.

Have you asked people who watched Avatar what is the purpose of watching Avatar?

Instead of making a fiction about going to a moon, we can actually go to the Moon.

It really is the question - why do you live? What is the purpose of anyone life?

There does not seem to be any purpose to anything in the universe. But we can choose what we want to do.

So the answer: Because we want to, because it is exciting, because it inspires, because we can.

Because this is what life is about.

Actually there is fuel in space - water and sunlight.

You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from sunlight.

In long term, most likely both Hydrolox and Methalox will be in use.

It really is the question - why do you live? What is the purpose of anyone life?

There does not seem to be any purpose to anything in the universe. But we can choose what we want to do.

So the answer: Because we want to, because it is exciting, because it inspires, because we can.

Because this is what life is about.

The movie Avatar made in box office $2.9B. This is exactly the same amount of money as SpaceX asked for an actual moon landing of $2.9B.

Have you asked people who watched Avatar what is the purpose of watching Avatar?

Instead of making a fiction about going to a moon, we can actually go to the moon.

Elon thinking is that on long distance flight you increase moved cargo per vehicle per unit of time.

He was saying that flying to the other end of the world will be 20x faster vs. airplane.

So if you move 20x more cargo per unit of time, then cost of cargo per vehicle + static infrastructure are proportionally lower.

But we need to take into account that number of cycles of a rocket engine may not be as good as jet engines, ground / water infrastructure seems a lot more complicated, fuel costs are higher etc. etc.

I doubt the math will close on it taking everything into account, but maybe there will be some limited use cases. USA army seems to be thinking about it. Extremely rapid deployment capability all around the world may be worthwhile for them.

The current law draft deems you a gatekeeper if you have:

- annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years

- market value of at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States

So, I believe it will apply to many game consoles.

More in detail:

Article 2, Definitions

‘Core platform service’ means any of the following:

(a) online intermediation services;

(...)

Article 3, Designation of gatekeepers

Paragraph 1, a provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if:

(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;

(b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and

(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.

Paragraph 2, a provider of core platform services shall be presumed to satisfy:

(a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;

(b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year;

for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year;

(c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last three financial years.

EU is specifically drafting legislation for gatekeepers in Digital Markets Law.

TL;DR Apple and Google will have to allow to install third-party app stores trough their stores.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20...

Gatekeepers like Apple will have specific obligation according to Article 5:

(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;

(c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;

And Article 6:

(c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper;

(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.

Following articles, like:

- article 7: Compliance with obligations for gatekeepers

- article 10: Updating obligations for gatekeepers and

- article 11: Anti-circumvention

give the EU Commission quite a lot of executive power to ensure effective implementation.

Obviously it's share something e.g. session state and database state.

But architecture of PHP applications is simple and it works. I like simple.

This is not what EU political bodies intended. In fact EU made agreements with USA twice to avoid this situation. And EU courts decided twice that the agreements were invalid due to lack of protections to EU citizens in USA.

EU commission wants to sign new agreement with USA, but they do not want to be found incompetent by EU courts for the third time.

So, this time EU negotiates for meaningful protections, but USA does not want to provide them.

It's actually USA law that is the problem here.

Specifically, the fact that USA agencies can do whatever they want whenever they want with EU citizens data and have 0 accountability to EU citizens.

Basically, we have as much rights as USA intended for terrorists.

We had "Privacy Shield" framework that was allowing to transfer data to USA, but the framework (and the one before that) was invalidated by the European Court of Justice in Schrems II ruling due to lack of protections for EU citizens in USA law.

PHP share-nothing architecture is awesome. It's amazingly simple and it scales to arbitrary size.

Yes, I was using the $12M estimate. Take it as within order of magnitude approximation.

We did not yet achieve brain scale compute.

Current machine learning models have around ~100B parameter, human brain has ~100T synapses. Assuming one DNN parameter is equivalent to 1 synapse, then the biggest models are still 1000 times smaller than human brain.

Cat or dog would have around ~10T synapses.

AlphaCode has ~50B parameters, that is 20 times less than number of synapses in a mouse brain ~1T. Honey bee has ~1B synapses.

So AlphaCode would be somewhere between a honey bee and a domestic mouse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...

Roughly half/half, skewed more towards improvements in algorithms.

Measuring the Algorithmic Efficiency of Neural Networks: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.04305

In this work, we argue that algorithmic progress has an aspect that is both straightforward to measure and interesting: reductions over time in the compute needed to reach past capabilities. We show that the number of floating-point operations required to train a classifier to AlexNet-level performance on ImageNet has decreased by a factor of 44x between 2012 and 2019. This corresponds to algorithmic efficiency doubling every 16 months over a period of 7 years. By contrast, Moore's Law would only have yielded an 11x cost improvement. We observe that hardware and algorithmic efficiency gains multiply and can be on a similar scale over meaningful horizons, which suggests that a good model of AI progress should integrate measures from both.

Mastering Atari Games with Limited Data: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.00210

Reinforcement learning has achieved great success in many applications. However, sample efficiency remains a key challenge, with prominent methods requiring millions (or even billions) of environment steps to train. (...) This is the first time an algorithm achieves super-human performance on Atari games with such little data. EfficientZero's performance is also close to DQN's performance at 200 million frames while we consume 500 times less data. EfficientZero's low sample complexity and high performance can bring RL closer to real-world applicability.

500x improvement over ~10 years since DQN that roughly 2x improvement in sample complexity every year.

A Time Leap Challenge for SAT Solving: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02215

We compare the impact of hardware advancement and algorithm advancement for SAT solving over the last two decades. In particular, we compare 20-year-old SAT-solvers on new computer hardware with modern SAT-solvers on 20-year-old hardware. Our findings show that the progress on the algorithmic side has at least as much impact as the progress on the hardware side.

AI research has also tiny budgets compared to the biggest scientific projects:

GPT-3 - $0.01B

LIGO - $1B

LHC - $7.5B

JWST - $10B

ITER - $20B

ISS - $150B

True, it does not make sense to invade Ukraine second time. And hopefully Russia will not invade.

We will see.

Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO due to disputed territories anyway.

As a Pole, after full blown invasion on Ukraine, I would support increase in military spending beyond current goal of 2.5%.

I also think that Sweden and Finland would join NATO relatively soon after invasion. After 2014 annexation of Crimea support for NATO grew there some 20-30%. Sweden is rattled enough to deploy symbolic military presence to Gotland. Joining NATO is part of political discussion in Finland, but they are on the edge.

Russia would only lose on war with Ukraine.

German navy chief did not say anything with regard to factual state at Ukrainian borders.

Ukrainian government is not denying Russia buildup on their borders. They just say that Russia does not have enough troops for a full scale invasion. So, Russia is preparing, but is not yet ready for a full-scale invasion.

But USA is indeed going too far in rhetoric if Ukraine is toning them down.

Personally, I think there is 55% chance Russia is bluffing and intimidates Ukraine to dissuade them from thinking about taking back Donbas and Crimea. 45% chance that by end of March there will be land corridor from Russia to Crimea.

Yes, very possible. Ukraine wants Donbas and Crimea back. And they are not excluding use of force.

This is also why Ukraine will not join NATO until they resolve their business with Russia.

Russia is obviously preparing for a full-scale invasion. It may be a bluff or not, we don't know.

But as I said, they don't even deny buildup.

They just say that they do not want to invade and that it is their right to gather army all around Ukraine. None of our business.

Instead they make demands with regard to security of countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and of course Ukraine.

By the fact that Russia gave Ukraine security guarantees for giving up nuclear arsenal (3rd largest in the world) in the Budapest memorandum and still decided to annex Crimea in 2014.

Ukraine was already invaded and is at war with Russia over Donbas since 2014.

Russia does not deny their current military buildup on Ukraine border with Belarus and Russia.

Article 3, Designation of gatekeepers

Paragraph 1, a provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if:

(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;

(b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and

(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.

Paragraph 2, a provider of core platform services shall be presumed to satisfy:

(a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;

(b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year;

for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year;

(c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last three financial years.

The law will require to allow third-party app stores. If Apple decides to impose 27% tax on everything sold in the third-party app store then I'm sure other EU competition laws will kick in. As Apple will be explicitly using their power to make direct competition non-viable.

Also, EU does not need to spell everything explicitly. The law will give the EU Commission a lot of executive power to respond to this type of shenanigans from gatekeepers.

Article 7, compliance with obligations for gatekeepers, paragraph 2:

Where the Commission finds that the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement pursuant to paragraph 1, or has implemented, do not ensure effective compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in Article 6, it may by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall implement. (...)

Article 10, updating obligations for gatekeepers, paragraph 1:

The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 34 to update the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 where, based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 17, it has identified the need for new obligations addressing practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6.

EU is specifically drafting legislation for gatekeepers in Digital Markets Law.

TL;DR Apple and Google will have to allow to install third-party app stores trough their stores.

This type of private taxes will become impossible to enforce.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?qid=16081168...

Gatekeepers like Apple will have specific obligation according to Article 5:

(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;

(c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;

And Article 6:

(c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper;

(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.

Following articles, like:

- article 7: Compliance with obligations for gatekeepers

- article 10: Updating obligations for gatekeepers and

- article 11: Anti-circumvention

Give the EU Commission quite a lot of maneuvering power to ensure effective implementation.

It's very likely that EU laws will not allow this type of tax anyway.

EU is specifically drafting legislation for gatekeepers in Digital Markets Law.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?qid=16081168...

Gatekeepers like Apple will have specific obligation according to Article 5:

(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;

(c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;

And Article 6:

(c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper;

(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.

I don't know what you are arguing against:

> The real question is not whether they work, but the tradeoffs.

Tradeoffs are hard. Also, objectives when balancing tradeoffs are subjective.

But you can suppress the virus for as long as you want if you are willing to accept the tradeoffs.

Lock-downs obviously work/worked in China, Australia, New Zealand etc.

From first principles, lock-down will obviously work when you isolate everyone in the society.

The less stringent the lock-down the less effect it will have.

The real question is not whether they work, but the tradeoffs.

Do we want totalitarian style lock-downs?