Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this.)
just delivered a commission on why bitcoin is very like hawk tuah
this season’s word is: kleptokakistocracy
Can we all take a moment to appreciate this absolutely wild take from Google’s latest quantum press release (bolding mine) https://blog.google/technology/research/google-willow-quantum-chip/
Willow’s performance on this benchmark is astonishing: It performed a computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 1025 or 10 septillion years. If you want to write it out, it’s 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. This mind-boggling number exceeds known timescales in physics and vastly exceeds the age of the universe. It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch.
The more I think about it the stupider it gets. I’d love if someone with an actual physics background were to comment on it. But my layman take is it reads as nonsense to the point of being irresponsible scientific misinformation whether or not you believe in the many worlds interpretation.
“Quantum computation happens in parallel worlds simultaneously” is a lazy take trotted out by people who want to believe in parallel worlds. It is a bad mental image, because it gives the misleading impression that a quantum computer could speed up anything. But all the indications from the actual math are that quantum computers would be better at some tasks than at others. (If you want to use the names that CS people have invented for complexity classes, this imagery would lead you to think that quantum computers could whack any problem in EXPSPACE. But the actual complexity class for “problems efficiently solvable on a quantum computer”, BQP, is known to be contained in PSPACE, which is strictly smaller than EXPSPACE.) It also completely obscures the very important point that some tasks look like they’d need a quantum computer — the program is written in quantum circuit language and all that — but a classical computer can actually do the job efficiently. Accepting the goofy pop-science/science-fiction imagery as truth would mean you’d never imagine the Gottesman–Knill theorem could be true.
To quote a paper by Andy Steane, one of the early contributors to quantum error correction:
The answer to the question ‘where does a quantum computer manage to perform its amazing computations?’ is, we conclude, ‘in the region of spacetime occupied by the quantum computer’.
Tangentially, I know about nothing of quantum mechanics but lately I’ve been very annoyed alone in my head at (the popular perception of?) many-world theory in general. From what I’m understanding about it, there are two possibilities: either it’s pure metaphysics, in which case who cares? or it’s a truism, i.e. if we model things that way that makes it so we can talk about reality in this way. This… might be true of all quantum interpretations, but many-world annoys me more because it’s such a literal vision trying to be cool.
I don’t know, tell me if I’m off the mark!
There’s a whole lot of assuming-the-conclusion in advocacy for many-worlds interpretations — sometimes from philosophers, and all the time from Yuddites online. If you make a whole bunch of tacit assumptions, starting with those about how mathematics relates to physical reality, you end up in MWI country. And if you make sure your assumptions stay tacit, you can act like an MWI is the only answer, and everyone else is being un-mutual irrational.
(I use the plural interpretations here because there’s not just one flavor of MWIce cream. The people who take it seriously have been arguing amongst one another about how to make it work for half a century now. What does it mean for one event to be more probable than another if all events always happen? When is one “world” distinct from another? The arguments iterate like the construction of a fractal curve.)
“lends credence”? yeah, that smells like BS.
some marketing person probably saw that the time estimate of the conventional computation exceeded the age of the universe multiple times over, and decided that must mean multiple universes were somehow involved, because big number bigger than smaller number
Does it also destroy all the universes where the question was answered wrong?
It reads to me like either they got lucky or encountered a measurement error somewhere, but the peer review notes from Nature don’t show any call outs of obvious BS, though I don’t have any real academic science experience, much less in the specific field of quantum computing.
Then again, this may not be too far beyond the predicted boundaries of what quantum computers are capable of and while the assumption that computation is happening in alternate dimensions seems like it would require quantum physicists to agree on a lot more about interpretation than they currently do the actual performance is probably triggering some false positives in my BS detector.
Maybe I’m being overzealous (I can do that sometimes).
But I don’t understand why this particular experiment suggests the multiverse. The logic appears to be something like:
- This algorithm would take a gazillion years on a classical computer
- So maybe other worlds are helping with the compute cost!
But I don’t understand this argument at all. The universe is quantum, not classical. So why do other worlds need to help with the compute? Why does this experiment suggest it in particular? Why does it make sense for computational costs to be amortized across different worlds if those worlds will then have to go on to do other different quantum calculations than ours? It feels like there’s no “savings” anyway. Would a smaller quantum problem feasible to solve classically not imply a multiverse? If so, what exactly is the threshold?
I mean, unrestricted skepticism is the appropriate response to any press release, especially coming out of silicon valley megacorps these days. But I agree that this doesn’t seem like the kind of performance they’re talking about wouldn’t somehow require extra-dimensional communication and computation, whatever that would even mean.
these are some silly numbers. if all this is irreversible computation and if landauer principle holds and there’s no excessive trickery or creative accounting involved, then they’d need to dissipate something in range of 4.7E23 J at 1mK, or 112 Tt of TNT equivalent (112 million Mt)
(disclaimer - not a physicist)
The computation seems to be generating a uniformly random set and picking a sample of it. I can buy that it’d be insanely expensive to do this on a classical computer, since there’s no reasonable way to generate a truly random set. Feels kinda like an unfair benchmark as this wouldn’t be something you’d actually point a classical computer at, but then again, that’s how benchmarks work.
I’m not big in quantum, so I can’t say if that’s something a quantum computer can do, but I can accept the math, if not the marketing.
reddit just launched an LLM integrated into the site. hardly any point going through what garbage these things are at this point but of course it failed the first test I gave it
So it turns out the healthcare assassin has some… boutique… views. (Yeah, I know, shocker.) Things he seems to be into:
- Lab-grown meat
- Modern architecture is rotten
- Population decline is an existential threat
- Elon Musk and Peter Thiel
How soon until someone finds his LessWrong profile?
the absolute state of american politics: rentseeker ceo gets popped by a libertarian
We should expect more of this to come. The ascendant right wing is pushing policies that only deliver for people who are already stinking rich. Even if 99% of those who vote that way go along with the propaganda line in the face of their own disappointment, that’s still a lot of unhappy people, who are not known for intellectual consistency or calm self-reflection, in a country overflowing with guns. All it takes is one ammosexual who decides that his local Congressman has been co-opted by the (((globalists))), you know?
there’s gotta be many more than 1% of right to far-right wingers clocking that that ambient suckiness is result of republican policies or profit squeezing, it’s just that i expected them to be way more apathetic
qanon and weird nazis were around for some time and they definitely can get worse, but i don’t think it’s it
also, killing CEOs is more of traditional activity of more ideologically consistent far left groups, like RAF. can’t have shit in late capitalism
StRev was calling him TPOT adjacent and woodgrains was having a bit of a panic over it.
“Our righteous warriors are only supposed to kill brown people and women, not captains of industry!!”
Do you have a link? I’m interested. (Also, I see you posted something similar a couple hours before I did. Sorry I missed that!)
https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1866197443404247185?s=46&t=nT1XIOTx9ax3_3I0GXvgVQ
https://x.com/st_rev/status/1866191524498719147?s=46&t=nT1XIOTx9ax3_3I0GXvgVQ
Sorry for not using nitter but im on phone.
@TinyTimmyTokyo @BlueMonday1984 lab-gown mest is fine tho. I’d be all over it if it ever works.
But yeah he’d fit right in on LW I’m sure
Edited based on later chat: eh
https://med-mastodon.com/@noodlemaz/113641637798676074
one of the best articles I’ve ever read was an inch by inch teardown of the entire concept of mass produced lab grown meat: https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-scale/ . it’s never, ever going to work at scale and I’d go so far as to say it’s the food equivalent of all the usual tech grifts we talk about here
@sc_griffith thanks, that is a cool piece! Indeed having done plenty cell culture myself and seeing those shockingly astronomical meat consumption figures, the solutions seem much clearer to me. I doubt LGM will be a useful reality in my lifetime, maybe far in the future. So, people need to stop eating meat, and eat plants instead.
Many are already doing so! I’ve mostly stopped with meat myself, just some fish to go.
But we need political will. Change of culture. Sanctions on the US, etc :/