ummonk

They don't reanalyze nearly as much as some amateurs do, but one of the most salient criticisms of Kotov's "Think Like a Grandmaster" is indeed that in practice the actual GM analysis process is often much more messy and chaotic than portrayed and often involves a lot of going back and reanalyzing / re-deepening previously analyzed lines in light of something learned from analyzing another line.

Yeah aside from being from a totally different rating pool, chess engine ELOs are based on faster time controls or imbalanced openings and don't really translate well to classical chess playing strength in FIDE ratings.

The author caveats things near the end by giving the disclaimer about computer ratings but still goes too far in downplaying the difference IMO.

Arrangements of data can be copyrighted, and the weights are definitely arranged.

This. They seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill that seems to consist of a couple of normal business meetings.

I wish the video presented had been one with, say, 5x higher bitrate, as it would have sufficed to make the point without presenting a video with very glaring compression artifacts.

I think even as a conjunction it was used more as a counterfactual (similar to "lest"), rather than as an alternative option (akin to "otherwise") the way it is used in programming.

Not after naturalization

If someone cares so much about flying, wouldn't they get much better range out of a helicopter?

Some company (might have been Yahoo or AOL) once released a dataset of searches for researchers to use. Researchers were able to deanonymize one that was searching for, amongst other things, how to kill one's wife. It turned out he was a happily married screenwriter for crime shows.

That's an argument you could make if police had to obtain warrants to access them. But they do not, at least in the US (things might be different in Canada where this happened, but I doubt it). Instead, they rely on rulings that there is no expectation of privacy in public. By the same principle, it's perfectly valid and legal for a civilian (or group of civilians) to set up an equivalent system to track police.

The point is that only someone already working there would have proficiency with all the software they use internally, so by listing those as requirements they can ensure no external candidate is eligible for the job the green card applicant is doing.

This is better

What about applications like distributed computing using volunteer computers, instead of datacenters? You can't really do that with normal backprop approaches. E.g. for LC0 the training data is generated in a distributed manner, but the neural nets themselves are trained centrally.

> The Unicode Standard defines plain text essentially as a sequence of character codes, without the additional formatting information associated with rich text. Fonts, colors, layout, and similar presentation details belong somewhere else.

Nope. Skintones are part of Unicode. It also has 33 control characters from ASCII including one that rings a bell... There are also numerous characters added by Unicode that are literally called "layout controls".

If you want a format that provides purely semantic information, then "plaintext" doesn't fit the bill.

And water is wet

“Reading a document like this isn’t just difficult—it is punishing.”

I’d be curious whether the author composed this sentence himself or it was the output of AI. Personally I often find myself “it’s not X it’s Y” and then recoiling in disgust and rephrasing it simply because AI has made it so grating from overuse.

It could go into personalization / memory. Or they could be A/B testing some system prompt tuning and consider the thumbs up / thumbs down as statistical feedback on the particular flags that are enabled for your account.

Are you saying that instead of investing in training right now they'll get higher ROI by pausing training for a year, and investing their money into taking out long positions on the stock market, all on the hope that what they label the "Extreme scenario" comes to pass?

How would going leveraged on the S&P 500 because they expect long term rapid GDP growth help them with short term cash flow to invest in AI training that will enable that rapid GDP growth?

The other reply doesn't contradict what you're saying. Someone who was street racing is going to tell the cops / insurance company that they were lost in thought.

Especially because the data that gets fed into training is first anonymized, so they’d need to look for navier stokes related stuff in the anonymized training set and then get make some sort of ad hoc process (with Tristan’s permission and sign off from legal) to compare the training data against his chats / Codex sessions to check if anything matches up. And that assumes his chats / sessions are still there, and not deleted to compare against.

This is an excellent point...

My best guess is that from the perspective of the OpenAI people, Buckmaster was letting his paranoia about OpenAI training tank his opportunity to receive the Clay Prize (it seems like Buckmaster and Alpoge's result isn't quite the full result required for the Clay Prize, whereas apparently OpenAI does have that full result worked out, using the same approach that Buckmaster and Alpoge had been exploring).

Whether the Codex sessions could have indeed made their way into Astra training data is something I can only speculate on though.

Yes, but again, what people call planets was stable for over a thousand years before changing rapidly in the past few centuries (first with the Sun and Moon being removed during the Copernican revolution, then Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta being added before being removed when they discovered a bunch of other asteroids, then Neptune being added, and finally in the last century Pluto being added before being removed after they discovered a bunch of other dwarf planets).

If you don't like changes to what people call planets, you should be unrolling all the other changes that have also been made, and go back to the original definition that stood from ~200 BCE-1700 CE.

No that would be an argument to return to the original definition of planets (highly visible celestial objects that migrate across the sky, i.e. the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn).

If you believe in the "standard 9" you're just insisting on returning to a scientific definition of planets but one that is frozen on our scientific understanding from a few decades ago...

Yeah, that's what I figured, but my worry upon seeing this is "what happens if lower() changes again and people forget to update the list of exceptions?".

Unless they have unit testing on the entire Unicode code space to ensure what they're doing is always identical to 3.2.0.

> The fix was to create new exceptions so that str.lower() would behave as if it was using Unicode 3.2.0 for only particular function. So, we go through each Unicode codepoint and record when the behavior of str.lower() is different when comparing the Unicode version shipped with Python and Unicode 3.2.0

This sounds like a really hacky solution compared to implementing a separate frozen Unicode 3.2.0 lower.

I feel like there are a lot of use cases where I’d opt for SQLite and a lot of use cases where I’d opt for Postgres + PgBouncer. I’m curious what kinds of features push towards using Postgres alone over SQLite.

I thought those were just allegations they made in the lawsuit, not necessarily something they had written evidence of in the form of messages.

How big is the OpenBSD kernel and userland actually compared to a virtualization layer?