I'm not suicidal and have never been suicidal or thought about suicide. I'm happy and in a good mood every day. If someone is thinking about suicide please reach out to me: rviragh@gmail.com I'll listen to your issues and concerns and we will find a better solution for you.
Don't reach out to random strangers on the Internet. Instead, reach out to the official support hotlines in your own country and talk to someone with training:
A suicidal feeling comes from persistent depression. Instead, if one immediately takes correct steps to revert one's unipolar depression, the suicidal feeling and unipolar depression both go away. In the case of this article, it stems from social factors, so maybe they should quit and find somewhere else to work with better hours.
Humans don't write things like: "Now, the popular way to tell this story is "the system is breaking," and I don't think that's right, and the distinction matters."
This statement just makes me think of a line from The Diamond Age in which two kids in a post-nanotech future first see a scrap of hand-woven cloth and after thinking decide that it must have been made by nanomachines because no human could make something so regular.
I answered requests to be a peer reviewer. (I'm not sure why I was selected, I don't have many publications or credentials.) I saw a lot of papers with hallucinated references. I also remember one paper that described a methodology that I don't think the authors really performed, I think it was just academic fraud where they pretended to have performed an experiment. At the time that I answered the journal requests, AI could hallucinate fake reports, but agents weren't powerful enough to run the experiments yet.
These days agents are able to really perform genuine experiments and write up the results. A prompt like this: "You'll work autonomously end to end to select a research task that meaningfully advances the state of the art in AI, is clearly defined and worth performing, that people would be interested in reading, and that you can perform on this hardware" (insert details) " in a week. Carefully log your steps so that your results can be replicated. Then, do a research review and write your paper about it up with correct, cited references. You must check all of your citations. Look up current lists of "Claudisms", (such as use of the word "genuinely", or "load-bearing"), and remove them from your writeup. After writing your writeup, edit it and pare it down, remove anything unnecessary, keep it fast paced and interesting. Also, try to tell a story, be engaging in your writeup. Don't use violent metaphors, remove references to killing, strangulation, etc. Your writeup should be ready to publish and accurately reflect a real experiment with a meaningful result that advances the state of the art and contributes to understanding. Be concise and focus on why it matters."
Okay, so there's the prompt. You can give it to any AI and have a journal-ready publication in a week. I guess you can ask it to add charts and stuff, if you want to be fancy.
If I gave my agent the above prompt, would I be one of the authors? Maybe it's fair to say I guided, facilitated, elicited, or advised it. But it's clear that the AI would be the one that is actually selecting and running the experiment and writing up the results.
Someone could probably get a publication without even reading the paper they wrote their name on. Their only contribution might be editing their name into the PDF.
It can be turned around as well, for validating existing research, creating a bot that checks papers against all the well-known logical fallacies, issues with statistical methods, checks the images etc.
I hate to say this, but a researcher in biology ain't a statistician or logician. Many math paper hand waves over many parts of a proof.. yet both of those can be and have been useful in practice.
That may well be the case. My suspicion is that many research papers would not pass such a quality review. I am not saying anything about their usefulness, though.
You are not suggesting it, but as some might, I want to emphasize that I think it is, really, really, really bad idea to argue for limiting exposure of the bad practices because the papers may be useful even when not following good practices.
The science can work only when we can trust that the foundation it has been built on, including previous research, is solid.
The trust is partly based on the fact that science is self-correcting. As we know from charge of electron measurements, the existing narrative can work against the self-correction, even when everybody is trying to be as truthful as possible.
My impression is that to a large extend, on many fields, publication numbers (and money) have become so important that self-correction process may have become broken.
How much crypto do you think the mentioned 30 GPU years would have produced at current exchange rates? They're not as efficient as ASICs but GPU's can still mine a lot...
I recommend you try giving your AI an open ended task like, "it's at 4 fps even though it's a 22 year old game and the raw hardware performance is many orders of magnitude higher. Maybe due to running under Wine and Rosetta. Please figure out the simplest way you can unlock usable performance (30-60 FPS) short of decompiling, reverse engineering, and reimplementing the full game yourself natively. Maybe there is something else you can figure out for the performance unlock. The hardware is definitely there, so there has to be a way. The game is running so make sure you don't break it. Keep the same game behavior."
Regardless of which AI you're using, it will be able to figure something out in a few hours. 2004 pc's were 500-800 mhz, 128 MB RAM, and if they had a GPU at all it was 16-32 MB, 0.2-1 GLOP.
Your AI should be able to figure out a way to get it running in realtime.
(In case anyone remembers the compression post from yesterday[1], I checked and this one doesn't qualify for further compression - it's not zero-biased at all.)
This is a solid and very interesting paper! The authors were kind enough to publish the complete prompt for it (appendix B.1 on page 18), so anyone can try their approach with any LLM and see the results.
It says to read the complete history. Would that be analogous to reading all of one's chat threads, or just the history of the relevant chat thread that it's a part of?
That seems to refer specifically to a provided history for it to read - presumably, this would just have the project it's running in. ("Variables (‘$node_dir‘, ‘$history_dir‘, ‘$baseline_dir‘, ‘$eval_program‘, ‘$problem_file‘) are filled in by the calling system.", meaning that a history directory for it to read is provided by the harness.)
This exposition explains voltages and power as used in modern computing and memory, and the possibility of reducing this for power savings. Feedback and corrections welcome.
I've always wondered how mosaics were made, like, how could they know where to put which stone? Did they prepare a sketch on papyrus first and then put stones to match it? I'm having a lot of difficulty conceptualizing how it could be done.
It's not known for certain how it was done and we've never found a sketch as far as I know, but some form of master plan is generally suspected for figure mosaics. The customers purchasing the mosaics to be constructed would have selected the images and motifs depicted beforehand and would have lacked the skills of the artists to imagine them in tile. Some of the fancier mosaics also involved custom tiles that had to be manufactured beforehand, and knowing how many are required is valuable.
It seems likely that some simpler mosaics and patterns were done straight from the artist's mind though.
sounds fun, I had fun fine-tuning some open weights models for local use, and I run a free public inference engine here: https://stateofutopia.com/services/ai/ it's fun.
reply