SneerClub

37 readers

3 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

self@awful.systems

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems

"Hours and hours of content have been minted by highly-educated, prestigiously-credentialed people, consternating about the policy implications of Sam Altman’s speculative fan fiction" (doriantaylor.com)

submitted 3 months ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] aio@awful.systems 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

the computational cost of operating over a matrix is always going to be convex relative to its size

This makes no sense - "convex" doesn't mean fast-growing. For instance a constant function is convex.

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 4 points 3 months ago

Hell, so is 1/x for positive values of x. Or any linear function, including those with negative slope.

[–] dorian@awful.systems 3 points 3 months ago

you will be pleased to know that the original text said "superlinear"; i just couldn't remember if the lower bound of multiplying a sufficiently sparse matrix was actually lower than O(n²) (because you could conceivably skip over big chunks of it) and didn't feel like going and digging that fact out. i briefly felt "superlinear" was too clunky though and switched it to "convex" and that is when you saw it.