Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B
Posts
9
Comments
743
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Spaced repetition, in particular Anki with FSRS. I don't think they advertise it as "AI" or even "ML" anywhere, but let's just say gradient descent over gigantic datasets is involved, all to predict the time when you're about to forget something so that Anki can prompt you just before that happens. The default predictor is generic, derived from that gigantic dataset, it's like two handful of tuning parameters, once you've gone through enough cards yourself it can be tuned to your mind and habits, in particular, how you use the "hard, good, easy" buttons.

    It's the perfect sledge hammer for the application for the simple reason that we don't actually understand how memory works so telling the computer "here's data from millions of med students and language learners, figure out how to predict it" is our best shot. And, indeed, it's the best-performing algorithm even before you tune it at which point it becomes eerie.


    Relatedly, as in "no LLM, no diffusion" Proxima Fusion is using machine learning to crunch through the design space of stellerators to figure out what to prototype in the real world. Actual engineers doing actual engineering.


    Then, lastly, yes, playing around with SDXL is fun. Just make sure you can actually judge the images, developing an artistic eye by hitting generate I think is close to impossible. Definitely slower than picking up a pencil, or firing up blender and actually learning how to draw or sculpt.

  • It's all you fucking asked about.

  • Never heard of the latter guy, the former had some interesting takes on linguistics which had seminal importance in CS, the rest of what he says is pretty much genocide denial after genocide denial.

  • I think your problem is that you seem to think that “perfect” mathematical models will ever work in real life.

    I said the exact opposite the whole thread. Are you confusing me with a capitalist or something.

  • Amazon is slower than pretty much everyone else in Germany, and it's been like that for literal decades. To get almost universal next-day delivery nation-wide a shop needs to do exactly two things: Have the parcels ready by evening, and not be located in the absolute boondonks (which would mean two-day delivery).

    Amazon, unless when ordering via premium shipping (included in prime but not worth it for that), takes days to even pack the parcel. Then they can spend a day or two sending it from one of their logistics centres to the other until handing it over to the actual parcel service.

    What they do have going for them is the mindbogglingly huge selection. Pretty much the only upside, if you need five small things from what would be five different stores each having their order minimums for free shipping amazon is the sane choice.

  • In the hardcore contemporary literature you mostly see more precise language such as perfect competition, (theoretical) situations which are pareto-optimal, which is built on Adam's rational choice models. The maths became more solid, the idea didn't change. They didn't have game theory back then.

    And FFS read The Wealth of Nations and see what he thought of monopolists he'd consider our billionaires to be no different than the kings of old. The father of capitalism was out for universal wealth and happiness, not personal enrichment.

  • Adam Smith came up with it. It's also how actual economists use it. Don't confuse that with how business majors, politicians, and generally peddlers of institutionalised market failure use it.

  • Coaches do have quite a large impact on teams, they're the ones who study the opponent, formulate strategies, and then translate that into a training regimen.

    In so far as being a kid is playing sportsball the coach is primarily the genome, then with some distance culture (takes a village and everything), and then the parents. You can praise a parent for having the wherewithal to introduce their kid to spaced repetition software, you can't praise them for the kid feeling inclined to learn six languages before the age of 14 that was all the genome spotting a niche, adapting a suitable individual to serve a role by making it excited.

  • don’t understand the benefit in doing this.

    FSB wants backdoor in kernel. FSB notices subsystem maintainer is Russian, lives in Chelyabinsk. Can close eyes to backdoor, can pretend to review. FSB in Moscow make call to FSB in Chelyabinsk telling to buy heavy wrench at hardware store.

  • The only reasonable way to avoid backdoors is to meticulously check the submitted code.

    Which is the job of maintainers. Which now aren't Russian, any more. To the best of my knowledge the kernel is still accepting code from Russian citizens, ultimately not having Russians in maintainer roles isn't going to stop the FSB from infiltrating the kernel but it certainly does make it harder.

    This also isn't in any way a judgement on the removed people, it's just that it so happens that if you're a Russian citizen you're quite vulnerable to wrench attacks. You could even say that the kernel org is protecting them from being used like that.

  • For one, you might not have much to chat about with your baby, so doing baby talk might actually get in more language training.

    In a good environment babies should be exposed to plenty of language. There's tribal societies which don't talk to their kids until they start to talk themselves and those kids turn out fine by all metrics researchers could throw at them. What they do do is take them with them everywhere.

    You do not need to capture a baby's attention for them to sponge up information. They do pretty much nothing else no matter what you do.

    What has been shown to be beneficial is to give them the opportunity to talk to their caregivers earlier, figures that language capability develops faster than the capability to make complex sounds, it's the whole point behind baby sign: So they can tell you that no they aren't hungry they want their teddy. Doesn't benefit language skills, it does reduce frustration (you might figure), bonds to their caregiver, and benefits both party's emotional states.

  • Right idea, wrong implementation. Try both making only cat noises.

  • Adam Smith's. He pioneered rational choice models in general. Came up with the whole shebang that 20yold econ 101 students love to ignore in favour of "free market is if I get a fat payout".

  • I'm not arguing for any policies, just explaining what would be necessary to make the theoretical model of the free market a reality in actual reality: It assumes perfect information and perfectly rational actors, it's a tall order.

  • Its assumptions are inconsistent with the conditions in the material world, but that doesn't make the model itself unsound. A model is not an argument, definitely not in the political sense, it's just a model.

    You can also include the model in the material world, as was done, at the very least, when the paper introducing it was published and that doesn't make the material world unsound, either: The model lives in organic computation machines which implement paraconsistent logic in a way that does not, contrary to an assumption popular among those computation machines, make those paradoxes real in the material realm they're embedded in.

    Everything is, ultimately, sound, because the universe, nay, cause and effect itself, does not just shatter willy-nilly. "ex falso quodlibet" would have rather interesting implications, physics-wise. For one, an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains would haunt an infinite amount of physicists.

  • To get closer to the free market there would have to be a duty to disclose any- and everything that's now a trade secret, no matter how easily kept. To not just get closer but actually get there we all would need to be telepathic. As said, perfect information is a bitch of a concept.

  • It's not so much that they're wrong is that they're impossible in practice. Axioms, by their very nature, cannot be justified from within the system that they serve so "true" or "false" aren't really applicable.

    The model does have its justification, "given these axioms, we indeed get perfect allocation of resources", that's not wrong it's a mathematical truth, and there's a strain of liberalism (ordoliberalism) which specifically says "the state should regulate so that the actually existing market more closely approximates this mythical free market unicorn", which is broadly speaking an immensely sensible take and you'll have market socialists nodding in agreement, yep, that's a good idea.

    And then there's another strain (neoliberalism) which basically says "lul we'll tell people that 'free market' means 'unregulated market' so we can be feudal lords and siphon off infinite amounts of resources from the plebs".

  • Or trade secrets. "Perfect information" is a bitch. Not to speak of "perfectly rational actors": Say goodbye to advertisement, too, we'd have to outlaw basically all of it.

  • You also need that stuff to shut up pseudo-sceptics. Like, random example, posture having an influence on mood, there were actually psychologists denying that, reason for that kind of attitude is usually either a) If there's no study on some effect then it doesn't exist, "literature realism" or b) some now-debunked theory of the past implied it, "incorrectness by association". Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean that you should discount catholic opinions on beer brewing, they produce some good shit. And just because the alchemists talked about transmutation and the chemists made fun of it to distance themselves from their own history doesn't mean that some nuclear physicist wasn't about to rain on their parade, yes, you can turn lead into gold.