At both unis I was at (U of Warsaw, TU Munich) courses with heavy loads contract out grading to students of the university. E.g. during my M.Sc. I was grading submissions for one of the B.Sc. courses I already completed. You get a small amount of money for that.

Contracting out to a company sounds extremely USA-pilled, as in “the university does not have enough resources so, instead of increasing their budget, we use THE FREE MARKET BABY and have a company whose whole existence is dependent on that resource hole continuing to exist.”

Weinstein released his Geometric Unity paper on April 1, debuting it on Joe Rogan’s podcast

Okay, like, you could’ve just started with this, this Weinstein person is clearly an idiot and cannot be taken seriously

His Geometric Unity proposal, therefore, has all the hallmarks of an outsider attempting to revolutionize physics, casting him as an Einstein-like figure toiling alone at the patent office.

I hate this framing so fucking much, Einstein wasn’t an “outsider”! He was known and respected! He talked to other prominent physicist all the time! Where does this myth even come from.

Hey I’m not an artist or really familiar with film and I also could’ve told you this

It’s not even that hard to grasp, ChatGPT is trained on all of human textual output it can be and it can’t write a coherent story, Copilot is trained on all of open-source code in existence and it can’t write a correct line of C++, obviously a film model is not gonna be any better

I’ve never heard of the Newcomb thing, this might be me applyng my CS brain where it doesn’t work, but can someone tell me why a perfect predictor isn’t immediately incoherent for analagous reasons for which a machine solving HALT is incoherent?

1. Assume we can build a perfect predictor.
2. One perfect predictor can predict the prediction of another perfect predictor (in particular, two perfect predictors predicting the outcome of the same experiment must give the same result)
3. Setup an experiment as in the Newcomb’s problem.
4. Use a second predictor to predict what the predictor inside the experiment would’ve predicted.
5. Choose the other option. Contradiction, perfect predictor mispredicted.

This doesn’t assume free will and it works exactly the same even if the predictor is not perfect (it’s enough that it predicts better than random chance).

I have no idea about Ruby or the politics behind the scenes, but I do know who DHH is and so it seems like literally none of this would’ve happened if not for point 2. on the list?? Just like, don’t platform the rancid toxic cesspit of a man and you’re fine??

God, we had so much fun doing this at my uni when creating an example DB table for an exam (only it was fake song/band combinations). Are you sure your coworker isn’t a robot themselves?

I don’t even understand why this is such a big contention, real and complex numbers are basically the same (equal cardinality sets), the reason we use C is because it makes math easier.

I reject the premise of the question, real numbers are fake anyway and complex numbers are equally as fake. We made both of those up. Just use the more ergonomic formalism bro.

Is there any place where I could find out wth this is but passed through a sneer filter already?

In Eliezer’s “utopian” worldbuilding fiction concept, dath ilan

In Eliezer’s sweet fucking what now?

It was very much a Luddite movement that succeeded

That’s interesting, because in Poland 95% of all history you are taught is “and then they grabbed guns because they were just so fed up with their* shit” and from modern history it’s mostly anti-commumist worker movements that were all about general strikes and loud, disruptive protests.

*Russians’, Germans’, Austrians’, king’s, …

Quantum computers are in fact (believed to be) more powerful than classical digital TMs in terms of efficiency,

Importantly though, not crazily so. We know they can do factorisation quick, and we believe classical cannot. But we also believe they can’t quickly solve NP-hard problems.

(In each instance, believe means it’s not proven, but the implications of it being false would be so weird and surprising we think it’s probably true and are trying to prove it so)

Not sure if analog turing machines provide any new capabilities that digital TMs do, but I leave that question for the smarter people in the subject of theorethical computer science) did.

Capabilities in the sense that they can compute problems that digital TMs cannot? No, they cannot Capabilities in the sense they’d be more efficient at computing some problems than digital TMs? Hard af to prove or disprove.

Sorry but who the fuck is that? Not one of our common guests here, I need a primer on her

I think it’s important to remember that Bayes was a real guy and bayesian statistics is a real useful thing even though Those Guys made it their religion. And they don’t really understand bayesian statistics anyway.

I was in London last week and I can confirm it still has the Big Ben, Trafalgar Square, and streets. The Tube is as shite and loud and warm and tight as ever. I even got called a cunt once. Had a blast. On a scale of Bordeaux to Beans on Toast I rank it 9/10 Britishness

code like a porn star thin

The what thing now??

What do you mean by this?

Accidentally posted in an old thread:

This bullshit again