think of df/dx as having “the type of f”/”the type of x”
I expect you learned calculus the wrong way, in a math class instead of in physics. That’s the point the notation, and the key reason it’s an improvement over something like or !
Shankar Sivarajan
Karma: 1,267
I read the longer article you linked at the end. Never mind, I hadn’t realized this work is meant to make your case that “it’s time to put some brakes on the porn business.” Reposting my own comment about policy papers in a different context (bioterrorism from open AI[1]):
a “policy paper” is essentially a longer, LaTeXed version of a protest sign, intended to be something sympathetic congressmen can wave around while bloviating about “trusting the Science!” It’s not meant to be true.
- ^
Not to be confused with the duplicitously-named OpenAI.
- ^
I agree embedding the titles into a LLM’s latent space is a sound technique, and that it lets you measure shifts in title content in an objective way, but your conclusion that it’s becoming “extreme” seems like editorializing. In particular, you lumping in fauxcest with rape and torture as “sexual violence” strikes me as, … well, I’d say bizarre, but at the very least, subjective.
You could just as well conclude that a shift from “lonely housewife fucks handyman/delivery boy” to “help me, stepbro, I’m stuck in the washing machine” signifies a trend towards lighthearted whimsy.
Britain has problems with state capacity,
If the state regularly exercises its ability to arrest people for posting jokes online they didn’t like, I’d say it had plenty of capacity, and your complaint is more that it exercises it differently than you wish.
It shouldn’t be too surprising: until very recently, it was standard practice for one of the two major political parties to have their agencies staffed almost entirely by “independent, non-partisan experts” who openly loathed them and actively worked to sabotage their agenda, so publicly pledging support to the other party wouldn’t hurt your career if they lost, and could help if they won.
I love the jumbled version of Siddhartha’s story in your opening. For narrative purposes, I’d just add you seeing the first three of the Four Sights (an old man, a sick man, and a dead man) without any kind mental anguish before the breakfast with your toddlers that made you walk away from the Bodhi tree and renounce meditation and “enlightment.”
she’s disqualified under “Are they truth seeking?”
I think having so high a bar for intellectual honesty below which everyone is equally disqualified isn’t addressing the question in the right spirit.
Whoever does PBS Frontline.
Agreed. This is a deliberate abuse of mathematical terminology, substituting any notion of “proof” with “looks true from experimental evidence.”
Thanks. This looks like a measure based on “perfect play” as a reference, with the strongest engine you can find serving as a proxy for it. I expect it works well in the typical range of human play, but I think it’ll be a poor metric at the extreme ends of the range, near random and at close-to (and definitely at better-than) engine level.
various dilutions of stockfish
This is precisely what I was looking for! Thanks. (I was actually imaging various amounts of noise being added to the weights of the evaluation neural net, but this is probably close enough.)
Thanks. Yeah, I guess chess has been (weakly) solved and that means you need a more powerful technique for probing differences. Follow up: around what rating do engines gain the ability to force a draw from the starting position? (I understand this will only be a heuristic for the real question of “which engines possess an optimal strategy form the standard starting position?”)
[Question] Chess—“Elo” of random play?
See also: “birds are dinosaurs.”
despite the evidence that’s emerged since the papers were published.
Perhaps relevant, she famously doesn’t like the arXiv, so maybe on principle she’s disregarding all evidence not from “real publications.”
In context, I took that to be a threat to try to get the event organizers and attendees “cancelled” as racists unless they capitulated and disinvited him.
David Mayer de Rothschild.
It’s a class thing: the upper classes have treated the lower classes with similar contempt throughout history.
A Vampire drone, for example, costs 43 points.
I think you could do better with some kind of auction, which would let you identify the most effective weapons you should increase production of.
Not quite what you asked, but I found this video visualizing Lagrange multipliers quite helpful. Plausibly it’ll help clarify Euler–Lagrange as well.
Your units question is easy: you get the same dimensionless quantities whatever units you choose. Instead of thinking of units as dimensions, I’d think of them as basis vectors in a five-dimensional space (length, mass, time, current, temperature[1]): you should have exactly five of them, and they need to be “linearly” independent, but beyond that, you can choose any set you like: you could instead have something like the natural units of (speed, gravitationality[2], angular momentum, entropy, charge). In this conception, this 5D space is fundamental: you need at least five dimensions (the ones spanned by c, G, h, k and e), and if you want more, you need to find some new as-yet-unknown independent dimension (maybe baryon/lepton number counts?).
Of the seven SI units, the other two are Candela, which is some “human visual perception” bullshit masquerading as fundamental, and amount of stuff/Avogadro’s constant, which I don’t think meaningfully constitutes a “dimension.”
ykwim: something with the units of G. If you don’t like this, just choose mass instead.