How do you figure? Itās absolutely possible in principle that a quantum computer can efficiently perform computations which would be extremely expensive to perform on a classical computer.
How do you figure? Itās absolutely possible in principle that a quantum computer can efficiently perform computations which would be extremely expensive to perform on a classical computer.
i read the title and was like damn weāre dunking on game engines now?
Wait I know nothing about chemistry but Iām curious now, what are the footguns?
I read one of the papers. About the specific question you have: given a string of bits s, theyāre making the choice to associate the empirical distribution to s, as if s was generated by an iid Bernoulli process. So if s has 10 zero bits and 30 one bits, its associated empirical distribution is Ber(3/4). This is the distribution which theyāre calculating the entropy of. I have no idea on what basis they are making this choice.
The rest of the paper didnāt make sense to me - they are somehow assigning a number N of āinformation statesā which can change over time as the memory cells fail. I honestly have no idea what itās supposed to mean and kinda suspect the whole thing is rubbish.
Edit: after reading the authorās quotes from the associated hype article Iām 100% sure itās rubbish. Itās also really funny that they didnāt manage to catch the COVID-19 research hype train so theyāve pivoted to the simulation hypothesis.
For some reason the previous weekās thread doesnāt show up on the feed for me (and didnāt all week)ā¦ nvm, i somehow managed to block froztbyte by accident, no idea how
I donāt think itās very surprising. The various CS departments are extremely happy to ride the wave of easy funding and spend a lot of time boosting AI, just like how a few years ago all the cryptographers were getting into blockchains. For instance they added an entire new āAIā major, while eliminating the electrical engineering major on the grounds that ācomputationā is more important than electrical engineering.
No, but the moon does.
the moon could get mad - fact.
Harry Potter and the Surprisingly Good Take
If you want a serious discussion of interpretations of quantum mechanics, here is a transcript of a lecture āQuantum Mechanics in Your Faceā which has the best explanation Iāve ever seen. Iād recommend the first 6 of Peter Shorās Quantum Computation notes (donāt worry theyāre each very short) for just enough background to understand the transcript.
I honestly think anyone who writes āquantumā in an article should be required to take a linear algebra exam to avoid being instantly sacked
Possibly the worst misunderstanding of quantum mechanics Iāve ever seen. I have no idea how anyone managed to convince themselves that the laws of physics are somehow different for conscious observers.
donāt mention skull sizes for 5 minutes challenge
Wasnāt Heidegger a Nazi, and his works famously avoid any mention of the Holocaust?
im doing my part
Dan Luuās āA discussion of discussions on AI biasā, about techbros trying to gaslight the rest of the world into thinking ML models donāt have problems
Why when we look into the stars do we not see a sign of life anywhere else? Has life not emerged yet or has it wiped itself out? With what? Nukes? AI? Synthetic viruses made with AI? Who knowsā¦
entertaining this awful sci-fi schtick for a moment - if every civilization is wiped out by āsuperintelligent AIā, how come you canāt look through a telescope and see signs of artificial life? in this fantasy world shouldnāt planets taken over by paperclip factories be even more conspicuous?
value is when line go up
Analyzing our data we conclude with 95% confidence that within a decade the Dyson Sphere Any% TAS time will be reduced below 55 seconds (Ā± 1E10 years).
Unfortunately āstates of quantum systems form a vector space, and states are often usefully described as linear combinations of other statesā doesnāt make for good science fiction compared to āwhoa dude, like, the multiverse, man.ā