krackers

>neurons generalize, work together, and build abstractions over layers. Somewhere along the way we overcomplicated that picture, but looking harder brought it back.

and it does seem that if what the article claims is true, then it really is that simple. To clssify e.g. fruit they first detect curves/shape, then the neurons downstream of say the "circle" detector may distinguish based on color, then the ones downstream of a specific color distinguish by texture, and so on. By the end, what you have are neurons that activate only on very specific combination of features, which map to each fruit.

In both cases what they really are is an abstract concept defined by things that satisfy some definitions, but in practice it's easier to just look at a few concrete examples like Maybe.

This only works of course if the game is actually fair, and you have infinite money reserves.

And then unlike the usual monotone queue for sliding max/min, this works for any monoid since you're never comparing two elements.

To some minor extent this is normal, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_cycle . Or at least the alternation itself is probably not the issue.

I don't have any specific experience in ML but I always liked the formalism presented in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1YCdVogd14 as a way to unify everything

I thought with NoPE schemes you don't even need it during pretraining

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19466

https://sebastianraschka.com/llm-architecture-gallery/nope/

Given the causal mask and the way attention works LLMs can implicitly propagate a signal for ordering

But isn't the assumption that arithmetic is "atomic" standard in TCS? Costs do scale with the bit length, presumably they aren't assuming that addition is "constant time" with respect to # of bits (which would defeat the whole point of the exercise).

Maybe I'm missing something, but none of the things mentioned in that blogpost seem particularly "surprising" to me, most of it focuses on the fact that computational models used in TCS don't align with the real-world model of computers, but that seems like something you learn in day 1 of algorithm analysis? If you want something closer to real-world you'd use word ram model.

If the TCC prompts could be dismissable some other way (e.g. via CLI with root permission) presumably he wouldn't have resorted to such measures. I sort of see the point, the lesson from Vista is that if you put up annoying obstacles people are going to the easiest workaround, bulldozing over them rather than putting up with them. People will end up disabling SIP or poking more hole if they don't have an easy way to bypass TCC stuff.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aIbRs2f6sVpCxO4TGoBf... (direction-log.md shows all the human provided input). It is far less than you'd think.

Then why was it allowed as an option in the millennium prize statement?

I think that implies mv3 does support it. Seeing as it can inject scripts, I don't see why it wouldn't be able to.