Comments by "xybersurfer" (@xybersurfer) on "Computerphile" channel.

  1. watcherFox why would an input need another input? we aren't confined to only using H or H+ as inputs.
    1
  2. nice video but you could have gone into a little more detail about the exploit
    1
  3. 1. he might have made 1 the base case not to confuse people 2. i strongly agree with this point. there was too much focus on the stack. in my opinion he should have left the stack out completely. 3. good point for imperative languages but in functional languages it's the only way 4. he should have used indentation better, but checks would clutter the essence of the examples. (usually you shouldn't be checking for overflows at runtime) 0. what i personally would have liked to see is that he explained the example by rewriting the original function call and every time on a new line, transforming it to the resulting return statement (as is usually taught in functional programming) it's nice to see there are other people that have a critical view, and don't just praise whatever is shown.
    1
  4. i'm curious. what don't you like about set theory?
    1
  5. you mean like when people try to shoe horn everything into it and try to explain everything in terms of sets? that would be something that has bothered me
    1
  6. i'm disgusted, by JavaScript being used everywhere. the only advantage JavaScript has is that it's supported in a lot of places. there are many languages that are more suitable to becoming a universal language. i can't wait for WebAssembly to give JavaScript a run for it's money
    1
  7. that's all the more reason, why better follow up questions should have been given to LaMDA
    1
  8.  @frilansspion  consciousness? no. acknowledge the context of the comment i replied to
    1
  9.  @frilansspion  i was not responding to sentience specifically. i was talking about getting the desired output from such a model. this is what i meant: "the real problem with getting the desired output, is the lack of consistency in the output of all neural networks. i don''t think the problem is the lack of an exact definition of the desired output" my reasoning being that having an exact definition, seems to defeat the purpose of using a neural network
    1
  10.  @frilansspion  it depends on what you mean with "a definition". i was not responding to the part of the original comment mentioning sentience. but when you put it all together and worded a little better than you did before, then in my opinion your conclusion about the problem with consciousness [in neural networks] being the lack of consistent outputs, makes some sense. of course i've considered this, but i won't come out and claim that. i think that's probably where the confusion is coming from. i'm trying to be careful not to make unwarranted claims
    1
  11.  @frilansspion  1) yes. it was my conclusion that the problem is a lack of consistency, but it was your wrongful conclusion that the problem i'm referring to is that of consciousness. 2) we are discussing whatever you meant with "a definition". 3) no. it's your conclusion that i responded to the whole comment. my reply was to part of the comment, like i already said. do you understand the difference between talking about X and talking about consciousness? 4) no. i'm not a bot.
    1
  12.  @frilansspion  why do you think that the original commenter used X, when they could have used sentience/consciousness? the original comment doesn't even contain the text you quoted. it looks like you are being intellectually dishonest. you want me to be exact, but your quote is not exact. i've already described the part i'm referring to, but you keep adding your own interpretation
    1
  13.  @GetawayFilms  what i said was not meant as a personal attack. but this indeed seems to be going nowhere
    1
  14.  @GetawayFilms  ah i see. hey no problem. i'm glad that i'm not the only one that noticed, the way he was replying. people don't often follow others arguing online, so i'm pleasantly surprised haha
    1
  15. i think it's lack of control is not important
    1
  16. i would say that Schönfinkel's contribution is the most important one to lambda calculus
    1
  17. ​ @Rockyzach88  this video seems to skip past a lot of the introductions, compared to other videos on this channel. making it harder to take an interest
    1
  18. @mrsuperguy2073 that's true, i agree that he should have at least mentioned the limits
    1
  19.  @Hedning1390  the number of pixels they are changing is quite small, so i would not call it robust at all
    1
  20.  @Hedning1390  oh. sorry. i was assuming you meant the artificial neural net. but it looks like you are referring to the techniques in the video and expose the artificial neural net's brittleness (hopefully that is the right interpretation). it seemed like a slightly more convoluted thing to be confident in the ineffectiveness of a neural net, so it looks like my imagination may have gotten the better of me
    1
  21. what makes the Chinese Room Argument interesting is the different perspectives, from which people respond to it. it is not some kind of absolute truth. i'll repeat what i wrote to you elsewhere under this video: you are aware that a function that takes as input a state and then stops and returns a state, can simulate a function that does the same but runs forever. right? whether a function runs forever is a meaningless distinction
    1
  22.  @mickh2023  does this mean that no one on the internet can convince you that they are sentient, because you are communicating with them through classical computation?
    1
  23.  @totalermist  so what if a function is a fixed point iteration? why would you care. with an input as complicated as reality, i suspect that you would be hard pressed in finding a fixed point. time can also be simulated. we could also dissect someone's brain and ask which part is sentient. the problem with deconstruction, is that every time someone points out something sentient you could pick that thing apart and claim you don't see any sentience inside. sentience seems like an emerging property. you seem to be confusing the implementation details, with the result
    1
  24.  @totalermist  what do you mean by the function not being unconstrained? yes it can get ridiculous to do calculations with pen and paper. can you explain how this is related to "the function not being unconstrained"? all i am getting from this is "doing your calculations by pen and paper is slow". i seem to be missing your point. if the information is complete, then why would you not be able to simulate something? with "cheating", are you referring to optimization and therefore the ability to prediction? and if so why are we talking about this? no. if the calculation output differs depending on the physical representation of the machine, then i would argue that it is not a physical representation. i disagree that consciousness emerging is not rational, just as i would disagree with opening up a computer and asking which component is the computer. also who decides into how many pieces we would divide a computer? this actually seems like an arbitrary decision thus not rational, so why bother? you seem to be unnecessarily specific.
    1
  25. i do agree that the video is a bit narrow minded
    1
  26. nice explanation
    1
  27. there is definitely some truth to that. but sometimes you can't bring your data into a format that the libraries can interact with. like if you have a huge file, then you may not be able to fit the relevant parts into memory so that you can hand it off to the library for example to do a search. i have encountered this myself. it's those kinds of situations where it's useful, but i admit is it's not something most people have to deal with
    1
  28. Ivar Kråbøl i can see where why you think that. but if you see the black part going from "beer" to chips as a value pointing chips, then it is correct that it now belongs to "burgers". because "burgers" is now pointing to "chips". the yellow part is a new pointer value. i think you would have been correct if he took the blue block from "beer" and used it as the blue block for the new "burgers" thing
    1
  29. very interesting code. i didn't understand how intuitive it was until i saw it. but it has some issues
    1
  30. how would those languages deal with partial functions like division (can't divide by 0)
    1
  31.  @vinny142  if everyone can verify the certificate, then it doesn't matter who signed it
    1
  32.  @SimonBuchanNz  i suspect that you are thinking about cryptography. but the certificate in the context of this video, is a correctness proof of what the program does. it doesn't matter who provides the proof
    1
  33. very interesting. i always wonder what implements the characters at bootup
    1
  34.  @laurendoe168  that certainly would be interesting. although i would doubt the trust worthiness of a system that can deceive without being told to do so (bad tool). maybe this is where the difference between it being intelligent and it being conscious makes a difference. i think that the messy way we are currently using Neural Nets, allows some of this weirdness
    1
  35. the explanation could have been a little better: - using '+' instead of '|' for OR was confusing. - the handwriting was also no easy to read 'e' looks like 'l'. - presenting everything as a proof rules was probably also not a great idea, considering the audience
    1
  36. i'm not that impressed by Eric Lippert honestly. it's probably his bad takes on the StackOverflow website, that gave me a bad impression
    1
  37. interesting idea. i wonder how that would work though in case of binary search
    1
  38. what incentives does it have to think way?
    1
  39. i didn't care that much for the python code, but what wasn't clear?
    1
  40.  @rumfordc  as expected. gaslighting. it's always the programmer's fault right?
    1
  41.  @rumfordc  i suppose you're right. performance in JavaScript has been pretty predictable to me. i guess i'm biased because i hate the weak typing and error supression (the design), paired with the thought of blaming any of that on the programmer. i'll try not to jump to conclusions
    1
  42. yeah scratch after C is weird :)
    1
  43. the explanation could be better
    1
  44. i think the arguments he chose as the result for TRUE and FALSE are intuitive. it's similar to the if statement in imperative languages in an imperative language you could write: if(1=1) {return 2;} else{return 4;}... in his examples you could use TRUE and FALSE as an if statement: (1=1) 2 4 the order of the possible results is the same it's easy to remember
    1
  45. WayToAesthetic yes and i think that would be a more efficient solution. i think he was going for the least amount of variables to make it intuitive
    1
  46. matsv201 in haskell a list is a recursive data structure. because: a list is defined as either empty, or the first element followed by a list of the remaining elements, it is a recursive data structure (its definition contains itself). an infinite list, is a list that always has remaining elements
    1
  47. what's the point of this? why the assumption that i would be surprised?
    1
  48.  @christopherg2347  you really don't have to be in real-time programming, to have to sacrifice readability for performance. it happens often when you encounter a performance issue, and you have to rewrite any code
    1
  49. yep
    1
  50. if you have "def holds(fun,arg)", then it looks the argument is missing for the second parameter in "holds(fun,fun)". it looks like a hidden type error. i would have preferred an explanation that avoided this confusion by simply using "def holds(fun)". as any function and its arguments can be turned into a function "without" arguments
    1