vrighter

@vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A game you "didn't know it was bad 'til people told you so"?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  i bought an original cartridge and played it on the vcs i iherited from dad

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What's an absolutely medium quality game? Not great, incredible or terrible or any single ended extreme. Dead medium quality⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  i still enjoyed the crap out of it. Sometimes zoning out and just running around collecting stuff is just what I need.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A game you "didn't know it was bad 'til people told you so"?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  he was forced to release it quickly to coincide with the film’s release. For comparison, it used to take a team of devs a couple of months to make a game. He had 6 weeks

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A game you "didn't know it was bad 'til people told you so"?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  when climbing out of the pit, it was very easy to immediately fall back down (due to the pixel-perfect collision detection).

  And here is an excerpt from the manual: “Even experienced extraterrestrials sometimes have difficulty levitating out of wells. Start to levitate E.T. by first pressing the controller button and then pushing your Joystick forward. E.T.'s neck will stretch as he rises to the top of the well (see E.T. levitating in Figure 1). Just when he reaches the top of the well and the scene changes to the planet surface (see Figure 2), STOP! Do not try to keep moving up. Instead, move your Joystick right, left, or to the bottom. Do not try to move up, or E.T. might fall back into the well.”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A game you "didn't know it was bad 'til people told you so"?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  it was actually way ahead of its time, for a game. One small bug (the workaround for which was in the manual) ruined its reputation. But I genuinely think it was a good game.

  Also written in 6 weeks by one guy. Freaking impressive

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  you wouldn’t be “freezing” anything. Each possible combination of input tokens maps to one output probability distribution. Those values are fixed and they are what they are whether you compute them or not, or when, or how many times.

  Now you can either precompute the whole table (theory), or somehow compute each cell value every time you need it (practice). In either case, the resulting function (table lookup vs matrix multiplications) takes in only the context, and produces a probability distribution. And the mapping they generate is the same for all possible inputs. So they are the same function. A function can be implemented in multiple ways, but the implementation is not the function itself. The only difference between the two in this case is the implementation, or more specifically, whether you precompute a table or not. But the function itself is the same.

  You are somehow saying that your choice of implementation for that function will somehow change the function. Which means that according to you, if you do precompute (or possibly cache, full precomputation is just an infinite cache size) individual mappings it somehow magically makes some magic happen that gains some deep insight. It does not. We have already established that it is the same function.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  the fact that it is a fixed function, that only depends on the context AND there are a finite number of discrete inputs possible does make it equivalent to a huge, finite table. You really don’t want this to be true. And again, you are describing training. Once training finishes anything you said does not apply anymore and you are left with fixed, unchanging matrices, which in turn means that it is a mathematical function of the context (by the mathematical definition of “function”. stateless, and deterministic) which also has the property that the set of all possible inputs is finite. So the set of possible outputs is also finite and strictly smaller or equal to the size of the set of possible inputs. This makes the actual function that the tokens are passed through CAN be precomputed in full (in theory) making it equivalent to a conventional state transition table.

  This is true whether you’d like it to or not. The training process builds a markov chain.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  no, not any computer program is a markov chain. only those that depend only on the current state and ignore prior history. Which fits llms perfectly.

  Those sophisticated methods you talk about are just a couple of matrix multiplications. Those matrices are what’s learned. Anything sophisticated happens during training. Inference is so not sophisticated. sjusm mulmiplying some matrices together and taking the rightmost column of the result. That’s it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  yes you can enumerate all inputs, because thoy are not continuous. You just raise the finite number of different tokens to the finite context size and that’s exactly the size of the table you would need. finite*finite=finite. You are describing training, i.e how the function is geerated. Yes correlations are found there and encoded in a couple of matrices. Those matrices are what are used in the llm and none of what you said applies. Inference is purely a markov chain by definition.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  “lacks internal computation” is not part of the definition of markov chains. Only that the output depends only on the current state (the whole context, not just the last token) and no previous history, just like llms do. They do not consider tokens that slid out of the current context, because they are not part of the state anymore.

  And it wouldn’t be a cache unless you decide to start invalidating entries, which you could just, not do… it would be a table with token-alphabet-size^context length size, with each entry being a vector of size token_alphabet_size.

  The pi example was just to show that how you implement a function (any function) does not matter, as long as the inputs and outputs are the same. Or to put it another way if you give me an index, then you wouldn’t know whether I got the result by doing some computations or using a precomputed table.

  Likewise, if you give me a sequence of tokens and I give you a probability distribution, you can’t tell whether I used A NN or just consulted a precomputed table. The point is that given the same input, the table will always give the same result, and crucially, so will an llm. A table is just one type of implementation for an arbitrary function.

  There is also no requirement for the state transiiltion function (a table is a special type of function) to be understandable by humans. Just because it’s big enough to be beyond human comprehension, doesn’t change its nature.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  yes, the matrix and several levels are the “decompression”. At the end you get one probability distribution, deterministically. And the state is the whole context, not just the previous token. Yes, if we were to build the table manually with only available data, lots of cells would just be 0. That’s why the compression is lossy. There would actually be nothing stopping anyone from filling those 0 cells out, it’s just infeasible. you could still put states you never actually saw, but are theoretically possible in the table. And there’s nothing stopping someone from putting thought into it and filling them out.

  Also you seem obsessed by the word table. A table is just one type of function mapping a fixed input to a fixed output. If you replaced it with a function that gives the same outputs for all inputs, then it’s functionally equivalent. It being a table or some code in a function is just an implementation detail.

  As a thought exercise imagine setting temperature to 0, passing all the combinations of tokens of input, and record the output for every single one of them. put them all in a “table” (assuming you have practically infinite space) and you have a markov chain that is 100% functionally equivalent to the neural network with all its layers and complexity. But it does it without the neural network, and gives 100% identical results every single time in O(1). Because we don’t have infinite time and space, we had to come up with a mapping function to replace the table. And because we have no idea how to make a good approximation of such a huge function, we use machine learning to come up with a suitable function for us, given tons of data.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  the probabilities are also fixed after training. You seem to be conflating running the llm with different input to the model somehow adapting. The new context goes into the same fixed model. And yes, it can be reduced to fixed transition logic, you just need to have all possible token combinations in the table. This is obviously intractable due to space issues, so we came up with a lossy compression scheme for it. The table itself is learned once, then it’s fixed. The training goes to generateling a huge markov chain. Just because the ta ble is learned from data, doesn’t change what it actually is.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  an llm works the same way! Once it’s trained,none of what you said applies anymore. The same model can respond differently with the same inputs specifically because after the llm does its job, sometimes we intentionally don’t pick the most likely token, but choose a different one instead. RANDOMLY. Set the temperature to 0 and it will always reply with the same answer. And llms also have a fixed order state transition. Just because you only typed one word doesn’t mean that that token is not preceded by n-1 null tokens. The llm always receives the same number of tokens. It cannot work with an arbitrary number of tokens.

  all relevant information “remains in the prompt” only until it slides out of the context window, just like any markov chain.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Looking for the perfect 5 year anniversary gift?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Snaaaaaake!!!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  an llm also works on fixed transition probabilities. All the training is done during the generation of the weights, which are the compressed state transition table. After that, it’s just a regular old markov chain. I don’t know why you seem so fixated on getting different output if you provide different input (as I said, each token generated is a separate independent invocation of the llm with a different input). That is true of most computer programs.

  It’s just an implementation detail. The markov chains we are used to has a very short context, due to combinatorial explosion when generating the state transition table. With llms, we can use a much much longer context. Put that context in, it runs through the completely immutable model, and out comes a probability distribution. Any calculations done during the calculation of this probability distribution is then discarded, the chosen token added to the context, and the program is run again with zero prior knowledge of any reasoning about the token it just generated. It’s a seperate execution with absolutely nothing shared between them, so there can’t be any “adapting” going on

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  their input is the context window. Markov chains also use their whole context window. Llms are a novel implementation that can work with much longer contexts, but as soon as something slides out of its window, it’s forgotten. just like any other markov chain.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  previous input goes in. Completely static, prebuilt model processes it and comes up with a probability distribution.

  There is no “unlike markov chains”. They are markov chains. Ones with a long context (a markov chain also kakes use of all the context provided to it, so I don’t know what you’re on about there). LLMs are just a (very) lossy compression scheme for the state transition table. Computed once, applied blindly to any context fed in.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨That's a good question⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  from the unending death that he himself (holy trinity and all that) would have inflicted upon you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨That's a good question⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  he could have just, you know, forgiven them. Like he preached. If I kill myself over a grudge I hold towards you, that just makes me an idiot. And, If I go around preaching forgiveness to everyone else, a hypocrite

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Are humans really so predictable that algorithms can easily see thru us, or does continuous use of algorithm feeds make us predictable to their results?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  i.e. their fundamental limitations is, ironically, why they are so easy to hype

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Wikimedia Foundation's plans to introduce AI-generated summaries to Wikipedia⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  the summary (not ecessarily ai generated) I read elsewhere is what got me to wikipedia in the first place.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨True Wireless Power is FINALLY here (building a TRULY wire-free desk setup)⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  it also would have very publically been a huge failure. Tesla tended to ignore the science when he didn’t like it. It could not have possibly worked

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'd choose 4 tbh⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  1 and 2 are definitely not the same

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  but you’re still wrong

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  and again, in the definition you just pasted in there does not say anything about closed form solutions. You keep contradicting yourself in trying to die on that hill

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  oh really?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I completely agree with what this comment says. It’s still irrelevant though. Where did I say it has to be unbounded? You are countering an argument I did not make. Whether the result is divergent or not is irrelevant. The point is that “not having a closed form solution” is not the meaning of chaos, which was your original wrong statement.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New Cars Don't All Come With Dipsticks Anymore, Here's Why⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  i have oil in the differential that needs occasional replacement

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  what does any of that have to do with anything I said? By the way, that wikepedia page doesn’t contain the word “closed” anywhere in it. just saying

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  No it doesn’t mean that. It means that tiny changes in input result in big changes in the output.

  By your definition, a simple ellipse is chaotic. Which it clearly isn’t. Tiny changes in the axes result in tiny changes to its shape, and by extension its perimeter. Yet there is no closed form formula for the perimiter of an ellipse.

  This could also be verified using a simple dictionary, not even a math textbook.