"Any NP complete problem can be changed into 3SAT in polynomial time" - if I remember correctly, turning an NP-complete problem into 3SAT is not part of the problem statement - it just means that when working with NP-complete problems, they are always translated to 3SAT first, and whenever someone is trying to prove something they are working against 3SAT.
The class NP-complete contains the hardest problems in NP. If you pick any problem in NP-complete, all problems in NP can be reduced to it (meaning that a solution to the problem you chose can be used to solve everything in the rest of NP) in polynomial time or “efficiently.” This applies to all of NP, including every other NP-complete problem, so in a sense, NP-complete problems are the same problem dressed in different clothing.
So the reduction to 3SAT could happen in principle, but it isn’t a necessary step.
Versioning and SCM solutions on image based systems has not been a problem in decades, but alas we keep getting people that don't learn from history and think they are the very first coming up with a solution for something.
Especially if their only understanding of programming is "the way UNIX does it".
The Supreme Court decided our President in 2000. I think the secret is that Alphabet agencies don't actually care about elections - otherwise it would have not reached the Supreme Court. If I was an Alphabet agency, instead of choosing a predetermined fate and faking things, I would admit I was weak if I could not handle any outcome. That is the joke I think the Alphabet agencies pull. They could force things to go their way, but that would breed weakness in themselves for being unable to handle events that do not, and they know it.
I was so depressed when they checked the refrigerator in GTA VI in the gameplay video on YouTube[0]. I know there was a glitch, but that's not why I got depressed. It was just too much for me. I don't know why, but it was soul-crushingly depressing. It made me feel so empty at such an existential level.
Yes, there's something interesting about that. It seems like having a very vivid simulation of taking a beer out of the fridge should be exciting. But as soon as you had it, you would stop caring about it. It's just not fun. Nobody is setting out to make a fridge simulation video game. This level of simulation has very high diminishing returns.
Meh, that does nothing for me. Yes, the game seems quite detailed but that's neither especially impressive from a technical standpoint nor interesting from a gameplay perspective.
If your belief is accurate, we should expect China to short the IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI and release better frontier models immediately after their IPOs.
Does anyone think that likely? I have no clue or bias.
I don't think that's likely because my understanding is that Chinese people in mainland China have a tricky time shorting American stocks due to Chinese capital controls.
Chips are automatically a depreciating asset - is there a historical basis for understanding how that affects companies, and how that will affect GPU-centric companies?
There's a pretty broad consensus that useful lifespan is only a few years, certainly no more than 7 and probably less. As each new generation of chips becomes more energy efficient at some point it's no longer economically viable to continue operating the previous generation even if they're still functional.
Not a lot of public data about things like that at scale, but there are some things like the Meta Llama report that had ~ 9% annualized gpu failure rate while training Llama 3. Not 100% clear from the Meta report if those are dead hardware or just 'unhappy' because they just put them into the 'interruption caused by' bucket.
Would be interested if anyone had better data on actual live failure rates of h100 or better class gpu that suck so much power.
Chip assets are a vanishingly small fraction of the valuation of these companies. If they were to depreciate instantly and need to be replaced at cost every year (assuming the fabs had capacity to produce them) it wouldn't move the needle.
This is like asking if there's a historical basis for understanding how the depreciation of garden sprinklers affects home value appreciation.
'Everything is a depreciating asset' is a fair statement - but things depreciate at exponentially different levels. A lot of things can be bought today which can be used for the same purpose just as efficiently in 10 years - and there are those which do not meet that criteria.
Houses depreciate without frequent and expensive maintenance. It's the land underneath the house that appreciates. In HCOL areas, wealthy people frequently buy residential real estate expecting to tear down the existing house and build a new one.
(There are some limited circumstances where a house can appreciate due to permitting constraints or rapid rises in construction costs, but those are rare and temporary.)
But zoning hell can sometimes make it apply to the housing itself too! For example, where I used to live, tons of housing was marked as "historic" and you literally couldn't tear it down or significantly amend it.
I thought this was a cool fact about the Bronze Age: "According to a new study, it's possible that all iron-based weapons and tools of the Bronze Age were forged using metal salvaged from meteorites".[0]
I discovered Quint[0] due to this comment[1] on HN. Quint is "an executable specification language [which works in JavaScript] with delightful tooling based on the temporal logic of actions (TLA)". I think it is awesome and anybody interested in TLA+ should check it out.
reply