And that's actually a really honest answer. Whereas someone of the opposite opinion might be like parroting in the general copying-template sense actually generalizes to all observable behaviours because templating systems can be turing-complete or something like that. It's templates-all-the-way-down, including complex induction as long as there is a meta-template to match on its symptoms it can be chained on.
Induction is a hard problem, but humans can skip infinite compute time (I don't think we have any reason to believe humans have infinite compute) and still give valid answers. Because there's some (meta)-structure to be exploited.
Architecturally if machines / NN can exploit this same structure is a truer question.
I don't like wading into this debate when semantics are very personal/subjective. But to me, it seems like almost a sleight of hand to add the stochastic part, when actually they're possibly weighted more on the parrot part. Parrots are much more concrete, whereas the term LLM could refer to the general architecture.
The question to me seems: If we expand on this architecture (in some direction, compute, size etc.), will we get something much more powerful? Whereas if you give nature more time to iterate on the parrot, you'd probably still end up with a parrot.
There's a giant impedance mismatch here (time scaling being one). Unless people want to think of parrots being a subset of all animals, and so 'stochastic animal' is what they mean. But then it's really the difference of 'stochastic human' and 'human'. And I don't think people really want to face that particular distinction.
In my mind, the pure reinforcement learning approach of DeepSeek is the most practical way to do this. Essentially it needs to continually refine and find more sound(?) subspaces of the latent (embedding) space. Now this could be the subspace which is just Python code (or some other human-invented subspace), but I don't think that would be optimal for the overall architecture.
The reason why it seems the most reasonable path is because when you create restrictions like this you hamper search viability (and in a high multi-dimensional subspace, that's a massive loss because you can arrive at a result from many directions). It's like regular genetic programming vs typed-genetic programming. When you discard all your useful results, you can't go anywhere near as fast. There will be a threshold where constructivist, generative schemes (e.g. reasoning with automata and all kinds of fun we've neglected) will be the way forward, but I don't think we've hit that point yet. It seems to me that such a point does exist because if you have fast heuristics on when types unify, you no longer hamper the search speed but gain many benefits in soundness.
One of the greatest human achievements of all time is probably this latent embedding space -- one that we can actually interface with. It's a new lingua franca.
AlphaFold is based on graph neural networks. The biggest issue is that we still do not know how to best encode graph problems in ways neural networks can exploit. Current graph neural network techniques exploit certain invariants but cannot distinguish between various similar graphs. And yet, they're still generating meaningful insights.
1. That two distant topics or ideas are actually much more closely related. The creative sees one example of an idea and applies it to a discipline that nobody expects. In theory, reduction of the maximally distant can probably be measured with a tangible metric.
2. Discovery of ideas that are even more maximally distant. Pushing the edge, and this can be done by pure search and randomness actually. But it's no good if it's garbage. The trick is, what is garbage? That is very context dependent.
(Also, a creative might be measured on the efficiency of these metrics rather than absolute output)
Anyone else think that there is already primitive image data encoded in biological data? Essentially basic shapes and patterns which are passed down semi-generationally.
Category theory isn't the only way to solve this. Arguably a purely continuous dynamical system like differential equations with certain boundary conditions would similarly work. Discrete dynamical systems however, are much better at representing finite, discrete relationships, particularly with recursion. I'm only just learning about these topics, but simple rules lead to modelling indeterminately complex behaviour (Rule 30, logistic map). These can be viewed quite clearly through the lens of category theory as functors and fixed points. However, the gaps between automata theory, discrete (and non-linear) dynamical systems and finally category theory are still very wide at the moment.
That's fair, I was more speaking about XML and its use as a form of binary transport. Things like WS-Management and explicit SOAP obviously came a little bit later, and SOAP-like technologies were popularized for more general use in the 2000s. I think it's fair to say my experiences in general lean more towards observing standards groups.
CIM/WBEM goes all the way back to 1996. They essentially wanted a management infrastructure on all kinds of devices (including different architectures, so actually C made sense then), but that also notably included remote access. At the time, SOAP was still popular, so here we are with a rather silly transport protocol and all kinds of overhead reinventing things like SSH. However, the overall goal still makes sense, it was essentially a way of 'object'-ifying everything from logs to other metrics. This fit in with the overall mode of thinking in MS with DCOM and COM (and registry), and structured configuration/management. I'm sure it's paid massive dividends on Azure Linux infrastructure. For highly structured objects, SOAP and XML aren't a terrible fit, but I doubt many people would do the same thing again today.
Honestly, they just needed to rewrite it in a safer stack. However, that still may not have saved them from all these vulnerabilities, given the scope of what they're implementing as remote management protocols. The relative scrutiny, fuzzing and manpower just hasn't been there, especially when it's obfuscated by various layers.
Implementing it with a hylomorphism is actually quite clean, however, understanding the plumbing to get there is not. The principles are generally quite simple, however, there's no non-mathematical wordings to describe it.
Have you seen any signs of which compression algorithm might be the one affected? Presumably it's one of their more snowflake ones. If it is in a library, surely SMB isn't the only affected resource? Perhaps it's not the library, but the plumbing or the headers and such.
It's not actually clear that they prioritize their own products all that much. Certainly in regards to Project Zero, it seems the point is that they are detached from the rest of the product teams. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
Outside of the security teams, I think it's actually that Chromium is much better fuzzed and scrutinized. They just have so many more resources, including those for security.
Depends on what you mean by Linux. The ABI Microsoft were attempting to emulate was absolutely Linux. (This API business is exactly the issue with Oracle vs Google over Java).
No, a lot of cross-platform applications are going to be using this infrastructure IIRC still. In this case, they only need a subset of the Linux APIs and they can optimize it to produce the right translations.
Because they aren't starting from nothing? They're starting from humans -- the more we can usefully encode about our knowledge of ourselves, the more time we can skip in evolutionary effort. The mutation rate is also rapidly accelerated and although we drop the fidelity in simulation, for the most part we can run magnitudes faster than real-time (and certainly if a limiting factor was human decision making time).
As a counterpoint, I would like to say that a lot of research still is 'routine intellectual work'. Movers and shakers are rare and far apart. The vast majority of academia are collectively and slowly boiling over problems, rather than taking bold and independent strives.
> Otherwise, you're implyjng that the developer of that technology would either release the technology as completely driverless or not release it at all.
In some ways that statement is true. Ford and a number of other companies refuse to implement level 3 automation -- because of the switch-over costs and human-vehicle communication impedances which would almost certainly lead to more accidents.
As someone with a great interest in comic paneling, I can agree, but there's so few that seem to do so. Not only that, but the vertical format (particularly as it pertains to optimization for mobile devices) leads to a number of negative effects, not limited to extended scenes where not a lot happens -- and the size and space available conflicts with the actual storytelling.
Induction is a hard problem, but humans can skip infinite compute time (I don't think we have any reason to believe humans have infinite compute) and still give valid answers. Because there's some (meta)-structure to be exploited.
Architecturally if machines / NN can exploit this same structure is a truer question.