Yeah I can’t fully agree with axioma #2. While people learn when you challenge them, every person reacts differently when they struggle. And there is this thing, anxiety, that makes people insecure. Mathematics anxiety is even a thing [1].
So I think this axioma is based on a previous one: everyone wants to be challenged, which I believe is not true. You have to give people a reason for that motivation first, to be able to challenge them. Otherwise you will make people feel insecure, because they will think that they’re not smart enough, and we are taught that maths = smart. (Maybe we have to tackle this social construct first.)
Well, my guess is that updates and inserts are much more frequent than searches in their use case. You're assuming a balanced frequency for these operations and it hardly ever happens.
ipv4 space is very limited and you can easily compute all the hashes. There is salting and combined with rotating salts it could work but no one guarantees that you’re not storing them
But the idea that the brain functions on a basis of complex statistical processes doesn't imply that statistics created the brain itself, it just suggests that the brain's processes can be modeled/understood through the lens of statistical methods. Statistics is just how we describe a tool we invented to analyze observable data, the brain could be a similar tool and it doesn't need to be the same tool.
It's akin to saying that we created the concept of "physics", yes we created it, and physics govern, for example, how a car moves, but it doesn't mean our concept of physics created the car or physics itself, we just use physics to describe and understand the car's movement.
Maybe statistics can't generate anything, but if you imagine everything we can do as very complex, unimaginable multi-dimensional functions that can generate outputs based on inputs, we can use statistics to find functions that fit any real (ground truth) function in the observable universe.
> the idea that the brain functions on a basis of complex statistical processes doesn't imply that statistics created the brain itself
Agreed. However, the phrasing and context of the question did imply the brain is "just statistics" and somehow emerged from statistics. If we are to interpret this as "the brain functions on just statistics" then the answer is still "it does not" because the brain can be said to function on countless different systems simultaneously, such as pure counting, algebra, calculus, etc which would mean that its not "just statistics."
> It's akin to saying that we created the concept of "physics"
This will boil down to our exact definitions, but most people conceive of physics as having a generative mechanism. If something were to ever be "created", like an atom or a new car, we would retroactively declare it to have been created in accordance with "the laws of physics." We wouldn't make the same retroactive assessment with something like "the rules of chess" because there is nothing in the rules of chess justifying such a creation. So we choose to give physics a special status.
> we can use statistics to find functions that fit any real (ground truth) function
A given statistical model might fit a function of the universe, but so might other models. Physics describe a function of the universe, chemistry describes a function of the universe, biology describes a function of the universe, politics describe a function of the universe. Describing a ground truth is one thing, elevating the description itself to the status of ground truth is another.
When you fine-tune it, do you train just the head/last few layers or do you also unfreeze the model afterwards and retrain the whole model with a very small LR for a few epochs?
10% of the population in spain was using netflix before this, as a reference 12% in germany, not that much difference. We'll see, but I think it has more to do with the decline in quality of the content and people sending a message than anything else.
My experience is similar but tbh I feel it's mainly due to the fact that oauth is implementing an important security layer (authentication/authorization) and that's hard by definition. There are lots of steps and things you can't afford to overlook or you'll be vulnerable to multiple different attacks
I kind of wonder if maybe they look for certain words in the output (or run it through some sort of sentiment analysis) and if it fails they submit the prompt again with a very strongly worded system prompt (after your prompt) instructing it to reject the command and begin with the phrase “As an AI language model”.
Like, I haven’t heard about a way they could actually implement filters this powerful “inside” the model, it feels like it’s probably a less elegant system than we’d imagine.
IMO if your app is less secure than your competition by default, the app is less secure, period.
Telegram is said to have been given authorities access to user data [1], despite the fact that they advertise the opposite. I guess that’s what happens when your app is not encrypted E2E by default.
Also, they have used their own encryption algorithm in the past (I don’t know now) instead of the well known and proven algorithms out there. Something highly criticized by experts, back then [2]
As a software engineer this all is very inspiring. I’m tickled and excited to do things again. I’m also learning deep learning and statistics and having a blast with toy projects.
So I think this axioma is based on a previous one: everyone wants to be challenged, which I believe is not true. You have to give people a reason for that motivation first, to be able to challenge them. Otherwise you will make people feel insecure, because they will think that they’re not smart enough, and we are taught that maths = smart. (Maybe we have to tackle this social construct first.)
——-
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_anxiety