running a model and training a model are two different things. Their claim is they _trained_ their model for millions of dollars not billions like their competitors.
but apparently that's what the world runs on
when does the The Butlerian Jihad begin?
He will be sorely missed. Gordon is the reason I've stayed in tech despite early setbacks in my career. I'll never be the deep knowledge holder of anyone one thing like a linux module, or dev of a universally used tool like WinDirStat. I'll never be the guy who knows why the motherboard traces got routed in that shape around the power supply for the processor, I'll never be the guy who configures the workflow for a technologist's software. But, now, I can confidently lead people who share the passion I have for technology and how we apply it, and I'd never have gotten to where I am without him.
Thank you old friend even though you never knew me. Sorry I never got the chance to meet you!
>These are problems with theories, not with physical reality.
Theories don't exist in physical reality? The model of a physical system doesn't share the same complexity?
> Your argument is complete nonsense.
You don't get the argument to begin with. Anyway we do agree that QCs are BS.
>That argument is nonsense. Using a part of a complex system as a computer is not a problem for the complex system. Otherwise you would run into this effect already with electronic computers or even an Abacus.
Actually a complex system talking or referring to itself is indeed a huge problem. See Godel's Incompleteness and the Halting Problem.
>Otherwise you would run into this effect already with electronic computers or even an Abacus.
You do run into these types of problems.. at least at sufficient scale. An Abacus is bad at math where the numbers are larger than the Abacus itself. Electronic computers are bad at quantum chemistry.
>This is how we can simulate electrons using electronics.
But how well does that scale? Also one of quantum computers' use-case is exactly that because classical computers are so bad at it.
If we assume quantum mechanics is the fundamental theory of reality and then isn't the universe some huge quantum computer? If that is true how can a computer simulate itself?
The universe is like a safe to which there is a combination -- but the combination is locked up in the safe. -- Peter DeVries