Deen Abiola

Developer for Math Ed software co | Independent Research on Intelligence Amplification | What type of Dynamical Systems can be called Intelligent? | bboy hermit

Last Notes

2025-08-29 18:15:34 GMT

- reply

I find the concept of busy beavers to be extremely interesting and disconcerting because of their surrounding concepts and their baggage.
So BB (10¹⁰⁰) is interesting not because it's large or small but because of the mind-boggling complexity encodable by turing machines with that many states, or that the value of BB (10¹⁰⁰) is so absurd we can't say exactly how big it is without also incidentally saying things about whether ZF(C) is consistent (600 states is already enough to trigger this).

2025-08-04 19:38:00 GMT

- reply

Indeed! But unless you're a graphics or physics engine programming specialist, it's all wrapped behind an API, so you don't actually have to know the details of how they work.
All that's needed these days is forming an intuition for how the various exposed function APIs work for representing rotations and spherical lerp. Hmm, I guess this is true for matrices as well.

2025-07-16 18:41:06 GMT

- reply

Ah, another interesting path to Hamilton-Jacobi as the classical limit is via Maslov dequantization.

2025-01-25 21:04:01 GMT

- reply

I think that phrasing is ambiguous enough for anyone to paint as they like.
It's likely referring to using reinforcement learning instead of trying to imitate some example data, to improve coherence (and in particular, the step that went directly from the raw model that computes conditional probs of strings--which we can sample from and talk to by conditioning on a conversation prefix--based on internet data, straight to RL without adjustments to give response strings more in line with human conversational expectations).
I can see why the author would want to phrase it that way for a broader audience. The optimization phase has much less hand-holding direction than typical. It is kind of a misleading way to put it though.

2025-01-06 09:14:57 GMT

- reply

What are your thoughts on the recent timescape model news cycle, if you don't mind me asking.

2025-01-02 15:36:10 GMT

- reply

Can you explain the sense in which beyond spacetime is misleading or even nonsense? I'd already read the article and took it as amplituhedron based calculations don't explicitly refer to spacetime--don't incorporate space-time coordinates. Is this incorrect?

2024-12-29 12:52:46 GMT

- reply

Best as I can tell, this post is about taking steps to escape this trap. It's critiquing the field's focus almost entirely on probing down to the Planck length and the assumed need for renormalizability, no?