There's no way I'm going to go through my repo dependency tree and paste twenty files into grok one by one.
well, your loss then. clearly your work steps aren’t big enough to benefit from SoA LLM
Readit Newsyababa_y commented on Grok 4 Launch [video] twitter.com/xai/status/19... · Posted by u/meetpateltech
yababa_y commented on Grok 4 Launch [video] twitter.com/xai/status/19... · Posted by u/meetpateltech
It cannot be better because Cursor looks across files, whereas with grok you'd be giving it a single one. Grok won't have any context about the rest of your repo, which makes it only useful for toy examples.
What's stopping you at pasting only a single file? I use the workflow Elon suggests (although I've never used it with Grok) predominately, it's well over 30% of my use of LLMs. I have a small piece of python called "crawlxml" that filters + dumps into <file> tags. And of course the LLM doesn't need your actual code in its context to do its job.
yababa_y commented on Opening up ‘Zero-Knowledge Proof’ technology blog.google/technology/sa... · Posted by u/doomroot13
for explanation i've seen for the where's waldo analogy: imagine the single page of the where's waldo puzzle, and another giant piece of paper with the shape of waldo cut out of it.
by providing a picture of waldo in the cut-out, you can prove you know where he is without providing the location. a zero knowledge proof.
everyone in this thread needs to read this paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3411497.3420225
Where’s Waldo as presented isn’t even a proof of knowledge
yababa_y commented on AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns philarchive.org/archive/S... · Posted by u/ICBTheory
No problem here is you proof - although a bit long:
1. THEOREM: Let a semantic frame be defined as Ω = (Σ, R), where
Σ is a finite symbol set and R is a finite set of inference rules.
Let Ω′ = (Σ′, R′) be a candidate successor frame.
Define a frame jump as: Frame Jump Condition: Ω′ extends Ω if Σ′\Σ ≠ ∅ or R′\R ≠ ∅
Let P be a deterministic Turing machine (TM) operating entirely within Ω.
Then: Lemma 1 (Symbol Containment): For any output L(P) ⊆ Σ, P cannot emit any σ ∉ Σ.
(Whereas Σ
= the set of all finite symbol strings in the frame; derivable outputs are formed from Σ under the inference rules R.)Proof Sketch: P’s tape alphabet is fixed to Σ and symbols derived from Σ. By induction, no computation step can introduce a symbol not already in Σ. ∎
2. APPLICATION: Newton → Special Relativity
Let Σᴺ = { t, x, y, z, v, F, m, +, · } (Newtonian Frame) Let Σᴿ = Σᴺ ∪ { c, γ, η(·,·) } (SR Frame)
Let φ = “The speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames.” Let Tᴿ be the theory of special relativity. Let Pᴺ be a TM constrained to Σᴺ.
By Lemma 1, Pᴺ cannot emit any σ ∉ Σᴺ.
But φ ∈ Tᴿ requires σ ∈ Σᴿ \ Σᴺ
→ Therefore Pᴺ ⊬ φ → Tᴿ ⊈ L(Pᴺ)
Thus:
Special Relativity cannot be derived from Newtonian physics within its original formal frame.
3. EMPIRICAL CONFLICT Let: Axiom N₁: Galilean transformation (x′ = x − vt, t′ = t) Axiom N₂: Ether model for light speed Data D: Michelson–Morley ⇒ c = const
In Ωᴺ, combining N₁ and N₂ with D leads to contradiction. Resolving D requires introducing {c, γ, η(·,·)}, i.e., Σᴿ \ Σᴺ But by Lemma 1: impossible within Pᴺ. -> Frame must be exited to resolve data.
4. FRAME JUMP OBSERVATION
Einstein introduced Σᴿ — a new frame with new symbols and transformation rules. He did so without derivation from within Ωᴺ. That constitutes a frame jump.
5. FINALLY
A: Einstein created Tᴿ with Σᴿ, where Σᴿ \ Σᴺ ≠ ∅
B: Einstein was human
C: Therefore, humans can initiate frame jumps (i.e., generate formal systems containing symbols/rules not computable within the original system).
Algorithmic systems (defined by fixed Σ and R) cannot perform frame jumps. But human cognition demonstrably can.
QED.
BUT: Can Humans COMPUTE those functions? (As you asked)
-> Answer: a) No - because frame-jumping is not a computation.
It’s a generative act that lies outside the scope of computational derivation. Any attempt to perform frame-jumping by computation would either a) enter a Goedelian paradox (truth unprovable in frame),b) trigger the halting problem , or c) collapse into semantic overload , where symbols become unstable, and inference breaks down.
In each case, the cognitive system fails not from error, but from structural constraint. AND: The same constraint exists for human rationality.
Whoa there boss, extremely tough for you to casually assume that there is a consistent or complete metascience / metaphysics / metamathematics happening in human realm, but then model it with these impoverished machines that have no metatheoretic access.
This is really sloppy work, I'd encourage you to look deeper into how (eg) HOL models "theories" (roughly corresponding to your idea of "frame") and how they can evolve. There is a HOL-in-HOL autoformalization. This provides a sound basis for considering models of science.
Noncomputability is available in the form of Hilbert's choice, or you can add axioms yourself to capture what notion you think is incomputable.
Basically I don't accept that humans _do_ in fact do a frame jump as loosely gestured at, and I think a more careful modeling of what the hell you mean by that will dissolve the confusion.
Of course I accept that humans are subject to the Goedelian curse, and we are often incoherent, and we're never quite surely when we can stop collecting evidence or updating models based on observation. We are computational.
> Even if Vyvance is manufactured with compounds that often have a smell or taste associated with them
Just to be clear: it's not "associated" -- the drug itself probably smells, and you just didn't notice it. It's very, very common with drugs containing amines.
Metformin, for instance, has a distinctly fishy odor (but it also has a couple more amines):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metformin#/media/File:Metformi...
from my experience washing some mediocre amphetamine cooks,
the fishy smell is not characteristic of pure amphetamine, but leftover methylamines from synthesis.
vyvanse adds a lysine but none of these amines are free. it’s odorless as well, but any lysine esthers leftover will stank.
it was shit product
yababa_y commented on Geometry from Quantum Temporal Correlations arxiv.org/abs/2502.13293... · Posted by u/ljosifov
My understanding is limited, but this seems pretty interesting. I'm not quite sure I follow the argument that space is a correlated interaction at the quantum level.
As a total tangent: it would be interesting to have an LLM-based modality, like a browser extension, where a user could highlight academic concepts in a pdf and drill down. Academic writing, by convention and necessity, is terse and references prior literature, sometimes opaquely. So getting up to speed in the literature takes significant effort.
semanticscholar does this!
Meta note but this paper is wonderfully written and incredibly approachable — excellent work by the authors.
it’s definitely a blog post or article and not a paper, this isn’t structured as a paper and is missing a lot of the things expected from a paper.
and it is so wonderful for it:)
Deleted Comment
In the meantime I was recommended a spa day at a place with Radon gas because it's so good for me health wise supposedly. Irony through the roof.
Well, if the exposure isn’t chronic, there might be a hormetic effect? Radiation dosage is the “classical” example of hormesis
i’ve vaped about 3g of DMT in my time, cumulatively. spotify (and other computer UI) looks very nice under the effects. it can supercharge spatial reasoning/visualization powers for a short time. i mostly haven’t met “entities” but it has happened a notable few times. once, an elf told me to “knock it off” after an afternoon of several trips in a row.
did it cure my depression? nah