Yann is smart but obviously not omniscient, I don't think it does the ML community a service to pretend that elders are never incorrect (or even badly incorrect). This type of thing is how we got the cult around Schmidhubering.
The problem isn't the classifier free guidance itself, but the choice of parameters. When a parameter above 1 is chosen you get images which very stronger conform to theme, but which there's not a good mathematical justification for.
Reddit is an absolutely hostile platform now, the amount of dogpiling is insane. Say the wrong thing and apparently you're simultaneously a bot, and a valid target for harassment (why people are so invested in harassing people they think are bots, I have no clue?)
Iirc, there's a big difference between the computational complexity of what a transformer can solve and what it can solve in practice; what it can solve in practice tends to come from things like singular learning theory (which describes the forms of generalizations that a given ML algorithm can make), but I think (iirc) that transformers can compute a pretty broad class of O(N^2) functions?
Yes, most people have to use a toilet occasionally?
I can personally attest that having mild gi issues can make most of Europe a bit of a hellscape, with their expensive and simultaneously gross toilets. As an Australian I never appreciated clean public toilets before going there.
The power of bootstrapping is pretty insane really, I'm still impressed by the performance of random forests, and even bootstrapped confidence intervals are really cool.
That only matters if there's an incentive for LLM a to collaborate with a seperately trained LLM b in order to help the LLM b achieve its goals. So long as you don't let the evaluating LLM tinker with the weights of the evaluated LLM, and as long as you don't believe in very dubious ideas of acausal trade there's no reason to expect this to be an attack vector. For more certainty you can repeat the same analysis with different model classes or approaches aswell.
Huh, I wasn't aware; I haven't looked into the construction, I was just taking the blog posts claims for granted. Does it extend to all finite fields, that'd be super cool if so.
> Yeah I’m gonna guess 99.9% of people making that criticism against academic philosophy don’t know those names.
The majority of people who hold just about any viewpoint are going to be uninformed, so arguing against the average holder of any idea is going to be pretty trivial as long as you know a bit of the subject matter. The value of an idea is surely roughly proportional instead to the strongest argument for it.
" In 1973, Jacques Morgenstern proved that you couldn’t get a Fourier transform faster than ½ n log n if you required that complex coefficients used in the computation had bounded magnitude"
I highly doubt this is going to somehow inspire people to make faster algorithms than the mathematical bound...
I have no problem with pure mathematics, my training was in it; but it seems very possible to me that most people funding theoretical computer science (as opposed to pure maths) probably assume the work has a more realistic computational model backing it up.
I think that argument made way more sense back when people were manually programming. Considering how small a delta staff cost will be compared to token cost, it makes way more sense in the new world to hire more expensive staff who better understand the nuance of your requests imo
It really depends why wider society values people who are good at maths though. Unlike the arts, society (in my view) values people who are good at maths for purely utilitarian reasons; up until now strong mathematicians have been neccessary to meet various end goals. There's a very real risk that LLMs (or AI in general) will in the near term future surpass humans in all of those pursuits.
If things we understand can't instantiate consciousness then I reckon we better shut down science as quick as we can, who knows how long it'll be before we understand something important!
P(doom) for not making an ASI is pretty well established, I'm not really sure why everyone in the 21st century seems to have completely forgotten the risk of nuclear war (as the single largest example).
A fun step-up would be to see if you can find an infinity shape by repeating the process with a set of points which are maximally far away from all points but 1 on the existing circle.
Stop the environmental damage of data centres by... Making extra hardware and moving inference to a less efficient area? This only makes sense if you're on off-grid solar.
I'm relatively confident that the US Constitution doesn't contain any prohibitions against the private boycott of people with different religious beliefs.
I've thought about it a fair bit, and I don't think there's really a very clear line between which religious beliefs people should politely decline to comment on, vs openly critisise. The cultural taboo that exists in much of the west against privately excluding people on the basis of religion has had some really positive effects (the marked decrease in religious violence of the past few hundred years is amazing), but it also leaves society somewhat vulnerable to the spread of some particularly cancerous ideas.
I love tokyo, but tbh, I don't think it's particularly clean? At least when I went there was a fair bit of rubbish around the place; certainly not as much as you'd find in most of Europe but definitely far far more than you'd expect given the cities reputation. I find most of Australia ~as clean.
It just depends on the person I think, nothing inherently wrong with the fact that some people take it a bit personally, just don't invite them back. Personally I love root, but there are definitely people who are a little sensitive to play it with; it really has to be the type of friend who can see the humour in a good backstab.