Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | JohnKemeny's comments login

I don't think that's the case. They can both not have the property that it is eventually larger than the other.

No, it is the case.

Look for the comment in the article, after passing to a subsequence if necessary. The ultrafilter produces the necessary subsequence for any question that you ask, and will do so in such a way as to produce logically consistent answers for any combination of questions that you choose.

That is why the ultrafilter axiom is a weak version of choice. Take the set of possible yes/no questions that we can ask as predicates, such that each answer shows up infinitely often. The ultrafilter results in an arbitrary yet consistent set of choices of yes/no for each predicate.


The axioms demand that either one function is eventually dominated by the other, or both functions are of the same order. But which of these is the case will strongly depend on which subsequence you look at.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

There's no need for the "/s" on the end, there. Deceleration, and especially in this case with a natural frame of reference, deceleration is negative acceleration.

More stringently, deceleration is decreasing the magnitude of the velocity vector, I would say.

If acceleration can be negative, so can speed. A negative speed with negative acceleration would not imply deceleration?


Speed is not a vector, it is a scalar. You are thinking of velocity.

The magnitude of the velocity vector is dependent on the frame of reference.

If you measure the same object's velocity from a spaceship traveling through the solar system, you'll get a different answer from what we measure from Earth.

That's why physics doesn't distinguish between acceleration and deceleration. What looks like acceleration in one frame looks like deceleration in a different frame.


Just like having employees with experience, I guess.

But tenured researchers are supposed to have some more protection specifically because they do research (and reach conclusions) on topics that people in leadership positions in society might not like.


I think they referred to the claim that AIs playing checkers should be considered thinking.

Does this article exist as a (LaTeX) pdf for printing too?

Our Arxiv preprint is a slightly longer read, available in PDF form with more precise descriptions: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17737

Thx!

It’s always fun to see new flavors of AD work. My attempts in that direction haven’t been the most successful


We don’t have plans for that, but you could try to convert the Markdown source: https://github.com/iclr-blogposts/2025/blob/main/_posts/2025...

Just because you divide a number by a lot to get a small number doesn't make the original number smaller.

Those are 200M/d prompts that wouldn't happen without the training.


> Just because you divide a number by a lot to get a small number doesn't make the original number smaller.

A bus emits more CO2 than a car. Yet it is more friendly to the environment because it transports more people.

> Those are 200M/d prompts that wouldn't happen without the training.

Sure, but at least a few millions are deriving value from it. We know this because they pay. So this value wouldn't have been generated without the investment. That's how economics work.


Those 200M/d prompts would be replaced with some other activities to solve the same problems. So if training did not happen, maybe instead of 200M/d prompts, you'd have 200M/d trips to the local library, using 200M cars to each drive three miles.

Related: "AI generated security reports about curl". 371 points on Jan 2, 2024, 121 comments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38845878


The notice on ftp.bit.nl predates ChatGPT. Perhaps more relevant: "Beg Bounties" 280 points, Nov 8, 2021, 104 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29147555

> Want to be a bounty beggar? It's dead simple, you just use tools like Qualys' SSL Labs, dmarcian or Scott Helme's Security Headers, among others. Easy point and shoot magic and you don't need to have any idea whatsoever what you're doing!


Alternatively to bounty begging, one could use these tools to find vulnerabilities and then try to figure out why it is a vulnerability and how it might be practically exploited. Seems like a good way to learn real security research. (Don’t actually exploit it, though...)

Have you ever looked at a painting?

> I tried this kiwix the other day, it has like a 300mb "essentials" text version that was interesting.

I didn't downvote the comment, but it's not an incredibly deep contribution, is it?

If you really wish to contribute, perhaps you can say what the "'essentials' text version" contained and why you found it interesting?


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: