In P/NP case I would need to assume that I can solve a problem in polynomial time, and then find a contradiction. To me it is really hard to see a useful path forward from there.
3,780 karma · joined January 6, 2015
Not having done CS undergrad, I have never really understood even P/NP. The naive explanation of problems that are easy to solve and check vs problems that are difficult to solve but easy to check seems to leave something essential out.
I mean, with the naive explanation you are I think you are left with either of two options:
1. A philosophical issue of not being able to prove a negative, you really can't prove that there is not a way to solve a problem fast.
2. That obviously P!=NP. You just for example lose information before giving the problem to the solver, say, I'm thinking a float with n decimals, then I round it to nearest integer and ask you to find the float given the integer. I can check the guess in linear time as n increases, but your difficulty increases exponentially as n increases.
I am pretty sure there is something in this problem that makes it a not legal P/NP problem, but I have no idea what. I have a couple of times tried to look for more formal definitions of P/NP, but the jargon goes immediately above my head.
(The "guess" is admittably there a bit informal, if you want a bit more formal problem, you take a process C that is mathematically proven to be sufficiently sensitive to initial conditions (e.g. chaotic), take integer x and calculate y = C(x), round y and ask what's x.)
Not GP, but to me, admittably a complete non-expert on search, there are so many low-hanging fruits if search result quality was anywhere on Google's radar that it is really difficult not to assume malicious intent.
Some examples:
- why pinterest is flooding the image results with absolute nonesense? How difficult it would be to derank a single domain that manages to screw google's algorithm totally?
- why there is no option for me to blacklist domains from the search result? Are there really some challenges that can't be practically solved in a couple of minutes of thinking?
- Does google seriously claim they can't differentiate between stackoverflow and the content copying rip-off SEO spam sites?
> LLMs as an extension of human thought: These models can automate and amplify human capabilities but do not introduce new abilities beyond what is already present in human thought processes.
I have toyed with the idea how would the society look like of we have "AI" that is superior to almost all humans in almost all tasks - with the sole exception being the fraction of humans who who are able to create actually new knowledge to humanity and "AI" to exploit. Would be some interesting dynamics if majority of people were completely useless in traditional economic sense, or at best, mindless drones for the physical tasks AI is not (yet) capable of doing.
(Feel free someone to write a novel on this)
I did not say the doctor would need to trust the answer. Only that they should be required to ask.
Ah, but copyright/patents/IP. Well, IP was created to foster production of useful immaterial stuff. If you now want to use it to hinder production of useful immaterial stuff, you can go to f*ck yourself if you ask me.
Ah, but lawyers and liability. I propose only that the doctor is required to consult the LLM. Easy to log and verify. All liability stays at the doctor who makes the final diagnosis.
Simple? Real? Let me give you some numbers. Let's use electricity as a proxy for consumption[1].
Average global per capita electricity consumption is currently about 3000 kWh/a. To put that into context, you can drive your environmentally friendly EV (20kWh/100km) roughly 15 000 km (10 000 miles) and use no more electricity at anything during the year.
US electricity consumption is ~12 000 kWh per year. So if you want to not force third world to poverty forever and keep the global consumption at current levels (I'm not yet discussing decreasing global consumption, just keeping it at current levels). US folks would need to cut their consumption by 75% to allow the poorer to get even.
Sorry, but that is neither simple nor real. If we want to see the poor countries to rise to even mediocre living standards, we will face a huge increase in global consumption. You do not need to like this (I do not), but it is a fact. So please, stop whining about the need to reduce our consumption and start supporting initiatives how we can produce lots more energy and stuff sustainably. Because we need to do that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
An example of argument that belongs to a weird class of arguments you at the same time want to agree and disagree.
Feel free to steal this startup idea. I'm afraid there might be some hurdles marketing this - and also localization can be a challenge.
However, while the simple discounting formulas described (likely, haven't read other than the list of contents) in the book were at the time actually used more or less as-is to value instruments in the derivative markets, nowadays they are seldomly used on their own. Two major developments there are multi curve discounting taking collateralization into account and different valuation adjustments, collectively known as XVAs.
That is not to say you do not need to understand the beginner basics, vice versa, iys just that nowadays there is much more nuance in actual valuation.
Edit: to add, I'm not sure if its useful to study these nuances in detail, unless you are going to actually work on the markets. In the big picture their details are likely not worth it, but of course it is good to try to understand why these developments have been needed/wanted by market participants.
I said the structure can be discussed. There is no problem giving first number of years free to see if the IP is commercially viable. The aggressive progression (doubling every year) means that literally all IP is in public domain after a couple of decades.
I think I have even more elegant solution. All IP should be subject to a tax (or maintenance fee or whatever you want to call it). As soon as the IP owner fails to pay the tax, IP falls to public domain irrevocably. The actual structure of the tax can be subject to debate. I would propose a highly progressive tax over time, for example for patents something like $100 for the first year, then doubling every year.
Seriously, why should IP not be taxed? We tax almost everything else that is possible to tax. Especially given it is far from certain that IP is net benefit for society. (I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt though, that's why I am not proposing to abolish IP completely)