> usually by people who are good mathematicians but know close to nothing about teaching.
I higly doubt that. Maybe in university level courses. Most people’s only experience with mathematics is an elementary or high school teacher who were probably themselves at best mediocre at the subject. Simply because of selection factors. Those who are good at math are encouraged to go into STEM. There will be of course exceptions everywhere, but that is not what “usually” happens.
And thats just about being good at maths the school subject, which is distinct from being “ good mathematicians” the science / research topic. Mathematicians are few and far between, simply because it is a specialist subject. There just aren’t enough of them to go around for them to be the formative experience around math for most people.
I think the problem is partly circular. Most people do not like maths. This includes most primary school teachers - in places I know primary school teachers are not subject specialists so just reflect the population of those with the required level of education in terms of their attitude to maths.
My daughter hated maths when I took her out of school at the age of nine. A few years later she was very good at it and enjoying maths and STEM subjects. When she went to a sixth form college[1] she liked it well enough to pick it as one of her A levels[2].
Nothing nuclear is easy. People will want to make sure you are not going to contaminate the atmosphere, or the aquifers. Not just on the day of the explosion, but long term. They will want to know your plans about how you will contain the nuclear contamination for thousands of years.
And then everyone and their uncle will sue you for any property damage they think they suffered as a result of your engineering. Which can be everyone who owns real estate for hundreds of miles?
But apart from those things there are really no major legal problems with it.
I don't believe that a pure neural network can currently abide by the rules of chess, even with unreasonable amounts of training. Do you have a counter example? I never mind having beliefs challenged with facts lol
edit: I think you could provide an AI with a service or skill that asks "is this move legal" but given all the overhead for llms or whatever to call a "legal move" service external to its process, well then you aren't really searching the tree very efficiently lol.
However if you just let a neural network score boards and the neural network is in the same process well then I think thats the working solution for using neural networks in chess. The net does not need to score all boards either, simple value based heuristics can obviously provide a preliminary list of good boards (moves) at a certain depth or ply and then select the move that produces the board that the neural net scores highest. I kinda sorta think thats whats done today but as usual I could be full of it lol
There's quite a big difference between "AI" and "pure neural networks." No, frontier chess (Alpha zero etc) is not "pure," because there's Monte Carlo tree search and a hard-coded game rules implementation.
> The idea that the Kremlin is worried in the slightest that you can prove it's them is absurd.
I mean they are. That is the reason they haven’t sent balistic missiles to the same airfield. They could have sent the same agents who placed those drones to the fence of the airport with a shoulder mounted missile and shot down the planes as they were departing. Or even shoot them down on the ground.
Or similarly they could send a submarine and disrupt the railway services of the Netherlands with missiles from that.
Those would be clearly attributable actions which trigger an immediate military response. That is the reason why they don’t do them.
You look at the actions they take and conclude that they don’t have any restraint or worries. But you should also be looking at the actions they could have but did not take to see that they are in fact restrained and probably quite a bit worried. If they werent they would play the game differently.
> You don't need a real basis for a response. There's nobody here enforcing any rules.
First order, maybe. But the clearer the attribution the more political capital there is to act. Just look at the article. We don’t know, and won’t know for a while, if this was caused by Russia or the FDF protestors or who. That is all confusion all kind of actors can use to criticise a government who puts more sanctions on Russia.
> There are two comments (Jan and Helmut) from 2014 under the blog post which posit that it's a book cipher.
Ok? but the clue is that the key is the "32 Proquiritations" immediately before the numbers. Not that it is a book cipher. Both Jan and Helmut misses that. Jan assumes that the keys are the "names of the ancestors", while Helmut assumes that the first row are page numbers and the second row are word numbers. With hindsight both appear to be incorrect, thus they missed the hint.
> It appears that is not true.
Strong words. I don't think your comment supports them.
Let's look at each part of the quote you claim is not true.
"Various people attempted to decipher it". Your link support this, doesn't go against it.
"but it seems they were missing one crucial hint." the link you provide doesn't show anyone getting the right hint. Yes they were groping in the right direction, but they didn't get that the "32 Proquiritations" is the key itself.
"They tried methods like frequency analysis, substitution, and homophonic substitution, and none of these approaches worked." I don't know if people tried these methods. The sentence doesn't claim these are the only method people tried. That would be obviously unsupportable. So as long as there is someone for each of these methods who tried them the sentence is true.
"That’s because they missed one easy clue." It is obviously impossible to prove that everyone missed this clue. Maybe someone during all those years got the hint, solved the riddle, chuckled and never wrote about his experience. Perfectly possible and we won't ever know. What is certainty that the people on the link you provided misses the hint. But you also haven't shown that those people "got the clue".
So which part do you feel is "not true"? Because they each seems to be holding up.
I'm not sure, but Sir Urquhart may have invented the word, and he's essentially the only person to have ever used it. It's presumably based on the latin quirites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirites
> but the clue is that the key is the "32 Proquiritations" immediately before the numbers
You're conflating the solution with the methodologies, which is what the article is listing in the original quote. The rest of your response is predicated on this mistake.
Sure I can simplify it. The article claims an important hint was missed. A hint, not the solution and not the key. Then lists the “methods” that people have tried and presumably missed, which of course is not true. You’d get this when you read all sentences together as a whole.
Why write a sentence by sentence exigesis like this? The text you are responding to is right above where you are writing. Who is going to miss that context?
Is there something more that you want to communicate other than that the linked page does not in fact solve it the way the LLM did?
Writing more does not in itself make a comment more thoughtful! We are all presumably on the same page here, just say what you want to say, in the spirit of intellectual charity and curiousity. There is no one to impress here!
Because the annotation is making it clear what exact part of the comment I'm referring with each part of my answer.
> Who is going to miss that context?
On hacker news? Anyone. Sometimes you blink and there are 200 different comments between the comment you responded to and your response. Often going into different tangential directions. People reading your comment have to trace subtle variations in padding to follow the thread of a conversation.
If you read HN with open eyes you can see confusion and misunderstanding caused by this every day.
> just say what you want to say
I do. Thank you. And I will say it how I want it.
> Writing more does not in itself make a comment more thoughtful!
Of course! You have to write the right words. What you are seeing in my comment is a one line opinion "Strong words. I don't think your comment supports them." surrounded by my analysis of why I think them. This way you can not only see how I come to this conclusion but also what information I considered.
If we were agreeing I could just write "yup". But because I disagree with the comment of geraneum, i better be precise what I'm disagreeing with and in which way. Exactly in the name of intellectual charity and curiosity.
The longer of the two quotes is from the article, not the comment they're replying to. The point is that OP did miss that context. They claimed that the article isn't right but, if you look closely, the claim in the article is true - the OP misunderstood it. So quoting precisely what the article said really was necessary.
Not really. The article is obviously misleading. The response can’t address the criticism in a meaningful way as a whole, hence going Jordan Peterson on it.
That “properly” is doing most of the heavy lifting there. The reason i would be weary of running the dishwasher with a toaster inside because i would worry that liquids trapped around thin electric conductors will corrode them. In othet words toasters were not designed to be easy to “properly” dry them out. And that damage might not be appearant right away or after a single wash.
In fact i wouldn’t trust the professor’s claim that the “toaster is perfectly fine” unless the professor conducted a lot of experiments. And even then i would only trust it with the toaster models he tested the claim with.
It sounds like at least some units has battery problems? Based on the description it sounds like water found its way into the battery compartment and short circuited something. A true product design nightmare.
That being said: I just don't understand the reason for the existence of this product. I'm a happy owner of an interdental water flosser and it is just not a problem aiming it at between my teeth. And the rare occasions when I mis-align and spray the water at my teeth is not an issue at all. And you feel when it is miss-aligned (or rather, not feel the water between your teeth) so it is not a thing I feel was in need of improvement.
I guess combining the water flosser with a toothbrush is nice, but does that need the whole camera stuff?
> If there's one thing that should be obvious from the war in Ukraine it is that relying on private companies is a bad idea for certain types of weapons.
I’m not following how that is a lesson from Ukraine. Their drones and missiles are made by private companies.
The true lesson i think is that in times of peace (or in times of wars of choice) procurement is dominated by excercises, lab tests, and design reviews. When you are doing that it is hard to tell apart the “good enough” from the “over engineered”. To every choice you can dream up a “counter”. Some real or imagined response or tactic by your enemy which would negate your system. And then your engineers have to design some counter-counter, or harden the system somehow. This leads to complexity which leads to high cost per individual weapon.
In contrast Ukraine is fighting for their existence. If they want to know if a new weapon is good enough, they send it to the front and try it. If it hurts the enemy more than it costs great. Order more. If it stops being effective, try something else. They are not picking the weapon system which will serve them for the next decade. They are picking what is available and effective today.
Different incentives, different opportunities which lead to different choices and different outcimes. But the difference is not if they are using private companies or not.
I higly doubt that. Maybe in university level courses. Most people’s only experience with mathematics is an elementary or high school teacher who were probably themselves at best mediocre at the subject. Simply because of selection factors. Those who are good at math are encouraged to go into STEM. There will be of course exceptions everywhere, but that is not what “usually” happens.
And thats just about being good at maths the school subject, which is distinct from being “ good mathematicians” the science / research topic. Mathematicians are few and far between, simply because it is a specialist subject. There just aren’t enough of them to go around for them to be the formative experience around math for most people.
reply