A lot of people just don’t believe in their hearts that different skills are a thing, that you can be good at one thing and bad at another. And people especially don’t like the notion that you can be better at the stylistic part of writing than the “making sense” part.
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
But look: my mom, who worked in academic publishing, could do a brilliant job editing a math manuscript for style without knowing calculus.
1 proslijeđeni tweet 14 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
She also subconsciously imitated the accent of whoever she was speaking to. And picked up Romanian by listening to phone conversations. She had a freakishly good ear. I’m convinced this is a single phenomenon.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 11 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
If I watch an episode of Peaky Blinders I’ll acquire an Irish accent by osmosis for the next hour. I subconsciously pastiche whichever writer I’ve been reading lately. I can’t *not* mirror conversational tone & emotion. One phenomenon.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 12 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
I claim Scott Alexander has the same thing: writes compulsively, great at style pastiche, nobody believes him when he says he’s bad at math.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 19 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
I think some people are legitimately better at style than sense or vice versa! They are not faking! Fluent pattern-matching != structural comprehension!
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 17 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @s_r_constantin
Spectrum disorders may in part be explained by differences in attention. GPT-2 is a deeper model, but it is not a fully integrated one. Meaning is given by the relationships to a more or less unified model of the universe. I wonder if we need to go deeper, sparser or different.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @Plinz @s_r_constantin
Pattern matching and prediction has proved sufficient for creativity, but not understanding. I think reflection and *integration* (unification) are the sort of things needed for understanding. Yes, meaning is given by integrating ideas into a global model
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
I really doubt that you can squeeze the round peg of 'understanding' into the square hole of probability theory. Need some sort of extension to probability theory? For understanding, we're not *predicting*, we're *unifying* (integrating)
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Marc je proslijedio/a tweet korisnika/ceJohn Carlos Baez
The answer could lie in a brief exchange I had with
@johncarlosbaez a while back. I lean towards an extension of probability theory based on some notion of *possibility* rather than *probability*. See here:https://twitter.com/johncarlosbaez/status/1054125666176688128 …Marc je dodan/na,
John Carlos Baez @johncarlosbaezOdgovor korisnicima @zarzuelazen @36zimmer i sljedećem broju korisnika: 2There's a branch of math called "possibility theory", analogous to probability theory but with probabilities replaced by number 0 (impossible) and 1 (possible): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibility_theory … This is less analogous to numbers vs. sets, more analogous to numbers vs. truth values.0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
I have a short discussion of that here https://youtu.be/e3K5UxWRRuY (roughly 27:15)
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.