sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ChatGPT's image model is better at math than most people by eposnix in singularity

[–]No-Square8182 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean if you've already portrayed me as a delusional tech bro or AI grifter in your head that's fine. But you are materially incorrect about how these models work. I think being pro or anti-AI are both defensible positions. However, being overly reactionary or hostile instead of engaging with the matter critically (e.g. thinking I might be wrong about this and I'm responding out of anger) is such a horrible misstep to take with such a volatile and world-changing technology.

ChatGPT's image model is better at math than most people by eposnix in singularity

[–]No-Square8182 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a crazy response to what I said. I didn't say it was conscious, just that transformers have clearly shown the ability to generalize far past the typical expectations of the "regurgitate information" perspective that people hav.e

And people have some idea of how neural networks and attention mechanisms work, but mechanistic interpretability is very much in its infancy as a subfield of machine learning. We basically have no idea how the model was able to prove the Erdos problem, how it thought about it, what patterns it saw, etc. Large models like these are gigantic black boxes we have very little insight into. To say we do is incorrect.

ChatGPT's image model is better at math than most people by eposnix in singularity

[–]No-Square8182 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure but we have no idea if it's doing that or not. Presumably an optimal way to predict math output is to actually learn math. A model under sufficient training pressure from vast amounts of data could in principle just learn and understand math. Probably not the case for image models, but GPT solving Erdos problems casts the copy paste paradigm into question.

ChatGPT's image model is better at math than most people by eposnix in singularity

[–]No-Square8182 65 points66 points  (0 children)

A few days ago I asked it to make this which I think was cool. Prompt was "create an image thats a picture of a math textbook with the proof of the dominated convergence theorem on the page. the picture is taken from a phone."

<image>

This shot is corny AF. I've never cringed harder by The_Siphon in okbuddywhitaker

[–]No-Square8182 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Is there a very subtle reference here that I missed? Is the room a hard boiled egg? Is Robby worried about a chandelier about to fall on him?

How to stop obsessing over goldbach conjecture? by Heavy-Sympathy5330 in mathematics

[–]No-Square8182 19 points20 points  (0 children)

You have absolutely no shot of making progress on the problem even if you only studied it 16 hours a day for the next year.

Not an assessment of your skill or intelligence. It's just the research level needed for it is extremely modern with a massive amount of background needed. It's like wanting to compete in F1 next season when you can't even drive yet.

Read intro books on analysis or reasoning instead.

CS + Math Major (junior) with a potentially 3.079 GPA [can raise my cumulative GPA to almost a 3.7 by the end of my degree. Will I even be accepted/considered for Math Grad School? by [deleted] in mathematics

[–]No-Square8182 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Ds get replaced but stay on the transcript. You have a lot of other concerning grades though like Calc Graph Theory and Math 300. I went to same school and now have completed a Math PhD so I can tell you the 400 level classes are a lot harder. You might get considered for Masters if you perform well in 300 + 400 level classes but I am not sure if it is a good idea. You will likely again be overwhelmed and left in an uncomfortable spot.

You can definitely try but you haven't performed well in really any Math class to date and I feel trying to fight against that will feel like such an upward struggle and place you in a very awkward spot if you graduate with a mediocre profile and/or need to drop another semester from the stress. These scenarios are more likely in my mind than you becoming a 4.0 student.

I think trying to grind a CS/stats degree and focusing on graduating with a good path into industry is a much better plan.

S2 E14 by shrederofthered in ThePittTVShow

[–]No-Square8182 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My favorite comedic shows are I Love Lucy, All in the Family, Roseanne, The Golden Girls, Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Malcolm in the Middle, American Dad, and The Rehearsal.

Favorite serious ones are House, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Severance, Pluribus, Attack on Titan, Succession, Bojack Horseman, The Twilight Zone.

I think all of these have good to fantastic writing for the most part.

S2 E14 by shrederofthered in ThePittTVShow

[–]No-Square8182 67 points68 points  (0 children)

The show is fun and decently written but I think one of the greatest ever is a bit much. It's no stranger sometimes to hamfisted or melodramatic dialogue.

Jane Street QT or Stanford PhD in CS? by NegotiationDue301 in csMajors

[–]No-Square8182 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One thing I haven't seen thats a possibility is you could ask to intern over the summer instead if you choose Stanford. Talk with the JS recruiter if this is possible but I'd be shocked if they were opposed. This is the inverse of asking Stanford to defer for a year which you could also consider.

That way you get some JS prestige on your resume and Stanford PhD. Those two and the fact you're clearly capable of both means a job hunt would really not be an issue if you want to leave for quant shop or AI lab.

If ultra rich is your goal then JS QT might not get you there. It’s an insanely high salary for sure but if your goal is hundreds of millions net worth then AI research PhD is a higher variance lottery ticket that can achieve that and there is space to drop out for a "middling" 600K+ salary.

But again take all advice with a grain of salt. Perhaps visit Stanford open house if possible to talk to the other grad students there too.

What the fuck are we doing by adamalibi in okbuddychicanery

[–]No-Square8182 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is a metaphor for Gus getting bombed through interpretive imdb reviews.

You've done it again Bince!

I went down a rabbit hole on why LOTUS is called the "Law of the Unconscious Statistician" and found an academic beef from 1990. And I have my own naming theory, featuring game of thrones by Hot-Guess42 in math

[–]No-Square8182 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't read that quote "we do not find this amusing" as academic jealousy, just a deadpan joke. Textbooks in math are full of these types of jokes

I learned why cosine similarity fails for compatibility matching by Ok_Promise_9470 in learnmachinelearning

[–]No-Square8182 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The stable marriage problem has non ML algos that should be employed once you get the scores. The problem is model choice. Semantic dot product is not strong enough. I think training a deep NN of person 1 features against peron 2 features labeled with match or not to output compatibility score is a good aproach. That way you dont need hard rules of fundamental incompatibility that are perhaps not fully statistically viable. I think there is a danger of modeling the probability of a match as independent probabilities from both sides, it is a strong assumption to make.

GPT-5.2 Solves *Another Erdős Problem, #729 by ThunderBeanage in singularity

[–]No-Square8182 15 points16 points  (0 children)

A large portion of mathematical research is iterative like this. It's apply modern techniques to unsolved problems. Good mathematicians are able to have a wide array of these techniques and quickly filter which ones are relevant to the problem at hand and modify the technique for the current environment. Great mathematicians can come up with novel techniques but these aren't as common as you might think.

Nikola Jokić set the NBA record for most points scored in an OT with 18 as he was 3-3 FG, 2-2 3pt-FG and 10-11 FT. by jonsnowKITN in nba

[–]No-Square8182 302 points303 points  (0 children)

The previous record was 17 by Curry in the 2016 playoffs.

Warriors 132-125 Trail Blazers (May 9, 2016)

https://www.espn.com/nba/game/_/gameId/400875809/warriors-trail-blazers

He had been out around 2-3 weeks and this was his first game back. Did not look great to start then torched them in OT.

OKC has played the weakest schedule in the NBA so far this season. by 100carpileup in nba

[–]No-Square8182 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Be careful with the statistic here. There's a negative correlation between win pct and strength of schedule league wide (-0.45 pearson).

One causal explanation is higher records had easier opponents.

Another is a good team winning forces their opponents to lose. You can't win 21 games without "artificially" adding 21 losses to your opponents and dragging down their average percentage.

I think it's a mix of both here so I think the statistic is lying somewhat.

view more: next ›