- 2 days
This is precisely why LLMs and AI are 99% a scam.
AI is the minimum value of a well structured dataset obtained by a destructive, hallucinatory compressor that is MAXIMALLY inefficient with inefficiency increasing nonlinearly as a model gets bigger… while it does demonstrate power, this observation that a well structured, QC’d, properly curated dataset reveals a latent intelligence in good data clearly points to functional programming, relational programming and the profession of the librarian and archivist as the directions where the genesis point of intelligence can be pursued, not these bullshitting AI’s which demonstrate a degraded truth in a stupendously hamfisted, wasteful way that sends amateurs looking hopelessly looking in the wrong direction.
In otherwords, the algorithm and model are worthless, costly junk, it is the well structured, large high quality dataset and the humans that maintain and contextualize it that are precious.
Scientists could have told computer people this was true a long time ago if they had listened.
- litchralee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish9 days
For an explainer of the theory behind the “language modeling is compression” paper, this video by 3Blue1Brown is especially relevant: https://youtube.com/watch?v=l6DKRf-fAAM
- 9 days
Now I want to see this for the other compression algorithms. If I had to pick just one: bzip2.
- 9 days
The coolest, and often most confusing thing about computer science, information theory, and perhaps reality in general, is how everything becomes more or less equivalent if you boil it down and twist it around a little.
Everything is sorting. Everything is compression. Everything is geometry. Everything is language. Everything is music. Everything is, like, waves, man. *puff*
Or more accurately, everything can be expressed in any of those other things’ terms.
These are not new ideas, but computers have made them provably and demonstrably true in many contexts, and I think that’s super cool.
- 9 days
Does it tell us something about reality if that’s true? I think it should… It reminds me of oneness.
- 2 days
Everything isn’t waves, rather things happen as a summation of all probabilities in a wavefunction unless bounded by imposing factors that force the phenomena of particles… meaning everything perhaps could behave as waves depending on the situation and details. It is the default background tendency until absolute limitations are imposed on a system through measurement or interaction.
- 9 days
But can everything be waves? Waves need to propagate through a substrate… so if everything is a wave, what is space?
- 8 days
Now we’re getting into linguistics with the question of “what is a wave?”
In quantum physics, basically everything is waves, in the sense that the same mathematical formulae used to describe waves are used to describe quantum phenomena. The intuitive human-scale dynamics of waves don’t necessarily apply though.
For example, sound waves can’t propagate through a vacuum, but light waves can. Aside from that, they follow mostly the same rules. You can use the same math the describe interference of sound waves and light waves, for example.
People talk about the “particle/wave duality” of photons because in some ways they behave like waves and in some ways they behave like particles. But both of those words are stretched a little from their everyday plain-english usage, and the precise reality would require years of study to understand.
Plain English wasn’t made to be that precise or objective. That’s why we use math. :)
I’m no expert in quantum physics so take this all with a grain of salt.
- 8 days
Thanks for the thorough reply!
What I’m gathering is that “wave” can refer to a behavioral pattern that is substrate independent — it refers to a logical function more than it does an ontological presence. That said, quantum waves are a substrate that exists beneath the material manifestations you and I experience (called a “wave” more-or-less for its mathematical properties)?
If that’s fair, would it be correct to call the quantum wave a “substrate” as I did?
and you know another thing about quantum field theory I don’t quite understand… I think it still depends on a four dimensional backdrop universe, for these fields to pervade. That fourth dimension is time, which is function of entropy. If time exists, that means the backdrop isn’t static — it evolves. That means it needs a fundamental explanation as well, something more than being just a background. No?
- 2 days
Subatomic particles are waves of probability.
It is worth looking up the Wave Equation and meditating on the fact that waves are solutions to a problem/set of conditions around conservation of energy.
It is an open ended definition not one that points out a discrete thing.
Surface waves for example such as Rayleigh Waves and Love Waves are solutions to the conservation of energy of a wave that cannot propagate past a free surface and thus energy in that direction must be conserved some other way through the solution of a surface wave.
https://visualpde.com/basic-pdes/wave-equation.html
https://visualpde.com/sim/?preset=waveEquation
^this is really fun I found it by accident because of this post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation
The second derivative (the acceleration) of energy in terms of time t is equal to a constant multiplied by the second derivative of energy in terms of distance x…
It suggests a basic back and forth transformation or equivalence at the heart of it, a wave is a relation embodied within physical constraints.