I couldn't see any citations or references in that video or its description. It presents it as him solving the problem himself, but I'm sure other people have written about solving the Game of Life in reverse with SAT solvers prior to this...
Garden of Eden[0] is a related concept where time-reversal comes up. Mentions NFAs, DFAs, backtracking and brute-force analysis. I see no mention of it but the latter was probably doing custom SAT implicitly, even if there was no access to our nice fast modern solvers.
See also: "Major IQ differences in identical twins linked to schooling, challenging decades of research" [1] [2]
I.e. the idea that IQ is some innate fixed quality has evidence against it. It seems obvious that this is the case, given that people get their children tutors so they can do better at IQ tests to get into schools...
> The most striking finding came from the 10 pairs with “very dissimilar” educational experiences. In this group, the average IQ difference was 15.1 points. This gap is approaching the average difference seen between two randomly selected, unrelated individuals, which is about 17 points
> The authors note some limitations to their work. The group with “very dissimilar” education contained only 10 twin pairs. While this represents all such published individual data from the last century, it is a small sample size
Thanks, the study is interesting, but needs further research.
There isn't an idea that "IQ is some innate fixed quality". There are two separate actual ideas being conflated there: that intelligence is an innate fixed quality (which is more or less definitional), and that IQ accurately measures intelligence (it doesn't, and we already knew that, but it's the best we have).
> There isn't an idea that "IQ is some innate fixed quality"
Actually yes there is; I have come across many people who believe this, specifically saying that IQ is fixed.
> that intelligence is an innate fixed quality
I would also disagree with this — intelligence can be increased, (e.g. through education, training, and practice), and also decreased, (e.g. by lifestyle / environment).
> Any leakiness in BackProp is addressed by researchers who introduce new optimizers
> As a developer, you just pick the best one and find good hparams for it
It would be more correct to say: "As a developer, (not researcher), whose main goal is to get a good model working — just pick a proven architecture, hyperparameters, and training loop for it."
Because just picking the best optimizer isn't enough. Some of the issues in the article come from the model design, e.g. sigmoids, relu, RNNs. And some of the issues need to be addressed in the training loop, e.g. gradient clipping isn't enabled by default in most DL frameworks.
And it should be noted that the article is addressing people on the academic / research side, who would benefit from a deeper understanding.
YouTube has so much questionable content on it that gets millions of views... Parents who've found ways to monetize their kids. Dangerous / unpleasant pranks being pulled on members the public. Conspiracy theories. Fake game shows where the winners being given money are actually friends of the host. Or where the host pretends contestants are doing something dangerous, but actually it's CGI, (misleading young viewers into thinking the dangerous stuff is real / fun). Morons making content that's attractive to kids who don't know better. Etc.
While there is some quality content on there, the amount of terrible content getting vast amount of views is pretty high.
I guess one question is whether TV is much better.. I would say on average it probably is less bad, although there have also been / are questionable unethical tv shows. But at least with TV shows there's more likely to be a few more layers of questioning / analysing / looking at the ethics, with responsible people involved.
Maybe a business/layer would be needed (if that doesn’t exist yet) that pick « best quality » content and provide a curated list as a channel ? YouTube is just the whole catalog. I would definitely like that, channels and curated content from YouTube because I lost so much time finding great content sometimes that it’s sad.
The fundamental way how youtube content is organised is channels. You find a few channels you like, you watch their back catalogue and you subscribe to their new content.
And it is indeed a business layer too. The people making the channel gets paid for their trouble per views. Each channel is a little brand with their own idea of what kind of content they will give to the viewers and in what shape and what kind of quality.
I’m sure what you describe is different from this in some way, but it is weird reading that you wish youtube had channels without mentioning that it already has them.
> because I lost so much time finding great content sometimes that it’s sad.
Idk if you are pickier than me, or have even more niche tastes than I do, because in my experience youtube is full of great content.
Usually YT channels are per creator so it’s usually the same vein of content. But TV has channels from many sources and it’s a manually curated list of content.
I was referring to the same way of aggregating content. TV is old and we don’t need a 1 month program of planned content I guess because everything is on-demand but still. Being able to make a specialty like curated channel and share it to watch it like TV might be a thing.
The internet itself is no different, its whether you choose to engage with that content or not. I have been watching Youtube for well over a decade and still have my channel subscriptions which drives the extent of the content I watch.
Conspiracy theories nowadays are about a year away from being conspiracy fact. Digital ID is being HEAVILY pushed by the Labour government in the UK. Scary times.
I'm not convinced something that's been tried multiple times on and off in the UK (last time ID cards were being brought in - by Labour and the 2006 act - it was cancelled by the coalition), and happens in many countries, is a "conspiracy theory"
Who exactly is conspiring and what exactly are they conspiring for?
I think that's a fait accompli -- it's merely a matter of who has access to the data.
The funny thing is that the clear anti-democratic leanings of our technolords are based upon not trusting the vote of the masses has unfortunately been somewhat validated (case in point: the current admin). There's just one small problem: the technolords themselves have only one vision and skill: enshittification in the quest of personal enrichment.
China has a very scary model of societal control, but at least they know how to invest in the country as a whole.
I mean, it depends a lot on the conspiracy theories.
The common right-wing conspiracy theories in the US are, like, one or two hops and skips away from "jews are running the world and we need to kill them".
Guys, why does everything come back to something hitler-y? Can we stop that please?
Stuff like this feels like some company has managed to monetize an open source object detection model like YOLO [1], creating something that could be cobbled together relatively easily, and then sold it as advance AI capabilities. (You'd hope they've have at least fine-tuned it / have a good training dataset.)
We've got a model out there now that we've just seen has put someone's life at risk... Does anyone apart from that company actually know how accurate it is? What it's been trained on? Its false positive rate? If we are going to start rolling out stuff like this, should it not be mandatory for stats / figures to be published? For us to know more about the model, and what it was trained on?
I agree, the post above you is patently wrong / hasn't read the paper they are dismissing. I also got multiple downvotes for disagreeing, with no actual rebuttal.
You're my fav new-ish account, spent about 5 minutes Googling froobius yesterday tryna find more content. :) Concise, clear, no BS takes for high-minded nonsense that sounds technical. HNs such a hellhole for LLM stuff, the people who are hacking ain't here, and the people who are, well, they mostly like yapping about how it connects to some unrelated grand idea they misremember from undergrad. Cheers.
(n.b. been here 16 years and this is such a classic downvote scenario the past two years. people overindexing on big words that are familiar to them, and on any sort of challenging tone. That's almost certainly why I got mine, I was the dummy who read the article and couldn't grasp the stats nonsense, and "could I bother you to help" or w/e BS I said, well, was BS)
> Model state is present only in so-far-generated text
Wrong. There's "model state", (I assume you mean hidden layers), not just in the generated text, but also in the initial prompt given to the model. I.e. the model can start its planning from the moment it's given the instruction, without even having predicted a token yet. That's actually what they show in the paper above...
> It is only after the model has found itself in a poetry generating context and has also selected the first line-ending word, that a rhyme scheme "emerges" as a variable
This is an assertion based on flawed reasoning.
(Also, these ideas should really be backed up by evidence and experimentation before asserting them so definitively.)
(Just to expand on that, it's true not just the for the first token. There's a lot of computation, including potentially planning ahead, before each token outputted.)
That's why saying "it's just predicting the next word", is a misguided take.
Edit: here's a paper on it from 2006, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-76928-6_...