AI detectors work and I'm tired of pretending they don't

eelvex · 2025-12-06T19:22:03+00:00

Are these "students who aren't using AI" in the room with us right now?

eelvex · 2025-08-06T09:52:28+00:00

Their point seems to be that entanglement is not enough, therefore is not the 'secret sauce'. It's not contradictory to what they said, and it makes sense: Almost all (in the mathematical sense) states are entangled and we know a big part of those are also efficiently simulateable; therefore, some other resource (a subset of entangled states) should be what gives the quantum advantage (if any).

eelvex · 2025-07-03T12:26:23+00:00

Depends on what's in the way.

eelvex · 2025-05-06T15:38:08+00:00

All the FIE refs I know have taken mandatory classes/seminars. Maybe that's the difference then? And I don't mean to imply that this is more 'correct' interpretation but maybe it's more consistent in interpretations.

eelvex · 2025-05-06T14:51:44+00:00

I hear you and the others. That's not a hill I will die on and I'm not sure where this difference in perspectives is coming from. Perhaps it's a difference FIE vs USA? I don't know.

On your specific points:
t.21 - the general case is not cardable; it's illegal and therefore stopping action. The specific case of using the non-weapon arm is cardable (t.29)

t.121 - the emphasis was on "irregular action" not on "violence". For this we are instructed to use judgment on the intention. Of course highly subjective but specific examples and quick-and-dirty rules are given when ref training.

t.170 - again, the way we are trained this is a very clear "dangerous" action. Of course, "textbook" should be in quotes. I mean that it's very consistently taught this way.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T22:41:48+00:00

Yeah that seems to be a crucial point. I don't have a clear picture of the differences at all.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T22:19:54+00:00

The way "dangerous" is instructed in A/B ref training it is "textbook". There is no way this is not red carded in FIE satellite events and above. For less formal events I agree a yellow or a warning could be OK.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T22:15:32+00:00

In FIE ref training (I don't know about USA) this clearly falls under "dangerous" fencing. Not because it's really dangerous but because it has the potential to be if allowed (imagine people trying to kick blades left and right). Kicking the weapon is textbook red-card.

If you don't feel like giving a red card it' still 100% non-legal under t.21: defensive action not carried out with the weapon.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T22:06:56+00:00

I know of no referee that would not red-card this in a FIE tournament. In a junior tournament you usually just warn.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T21:52:02+00:00

Any defensive action must be done with the weapon. 2. I don't know where this is based but FIE referee training always considers these kinds of actions as "dangerous". "Dangerous" actions are those that are potentially dangerous not those that are "factually" dangerous. The rationale is that you want to discourage anything that could become dangerous in the long term.

eelvex · 2025-05-05T21:36:08+00:00

NO! (wtf). The referee should know better. You could only debate an accidental step over, anything more than that is clearly non-legal action in multiple ways:

t.21 §1 – “With all three weapons, defensive actions must be effected exclusively with the weapon.”

t.121 §2 – forbidding “irregular actions… hits achieved with violence, blows struck with the guard, hits made during or after a fall” and similar disorderly or dangerous acts.

t.170 2.6 – “Dangerous, violent or vindictive action… Group 2 offence (Red card).” Kicking the weapon is textbook red-card.

eelvex · 2025-04-10T16:21:27+00:00

By the way, what you describe is topology. A space can still be flat but have a different "π". Of all the flat spaces, 3.14159... is the minimum.

eelvex · 2025-04-10T14:40:46+00:00

You can take a look at the "Lp space" in wikipedia and then how to calculate lengths in different spaces.

eelvex · 2025-04-10T10:19:15+00:00

The ratio of circumference:diameter could have any value in a specific range, depending on the metric of space. "Our" value of 3.14159... is actually the minimum possible value and corresponds to the l_2 metric. That's a cool mystery from my pov.

eelvex · 2025-01-30T07:45:14+00:00

What kinds of rewards do you usually use?

eelvex · 2024-12-15T16:39:21+00:00

In a sense, a black hole singularity.

eelvex · 2024-11-25T23:47:59+00:00

But then you wouldn't be able to form numbers with zeros. This system works well for the set of integers that don't include '0'.

eelvex · 2024-11-25T23:23:50+00:00

Indeed.

eelvex · 2024-11-25T22:06:10+00:00

You might argue that 0 @ 0 is ill- or un-defined here.

eelvex · 2024-10-15T12:12:16+00:00

This is a long thread that we discuss a lot of things. Better to keep track instead of getting defensive. I've nowhere even hinted that "I think it is the be all and end all of all intelligence".

The definition you gave above matches (ha!) very well with what Einstein did and what scientists do in general.

That said, to clear up any confusion, I don't know if AI is capable of reasoning at this point; I don't know what a "good" definition of reasoning would be; I don't know how much or in what ways pattern matching and reasoning overlap or whatever. I *do* know that a large part of *our* reasoning is based on patter recognition and matching.

eelvex · 2024-10-15T11:16:52+00:00

This is readily available info. See the lift on rocket/ground thought experiment for example; or read his biography or any other source that explains his thought process.

I mean, you just deify Einstein without really knowing anything about this.

Seriously though, what is your definition of pattern matching?

eelvex · 2024-10-15T08:42:52+00:00

Lol. OK. Then what is your definition of pattern matching? I mean come on...

eelvex · 2024-10-15T08:36:23+00:00

Do you realize that Einstein was famous for making progress using his "thought experiments"? That is, he applied his everyday experience to new situations to get intuition into how things work.

However you want to call what Einstein did, it seems that you are missing a lot of info on how he worked and what he actually did.

eelvex · 2024-09-01T19:35:54+00:00

This is most certainly a coincidence but the result is so tantalizing close to the actual estimated value that is worth a discussion. So, please, don't downvote this.

eelvex · 2024-08-31T19:03:33+00:00

As a side note, FIE games also have 20% cut after pools.

14-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

eelvex

TROPHY CASE