No, you just needed to be less dismissive. The words ludricous and impossible are too absolute.
Neuralink
- Thread starter D3K
- Start date
You just wanted to share your 24,000th post with me.Well your entire argument has been, "In future we'll have invented stuff to make this all possible."
So yeah, I'm an idiot. But only for keeping this conversation going
Any opportunity to run away huh?
And this isn't ML. The machine already learned.
FYI in the context of "mathematical" overfitting which I must assume you are referring to: no. There is no overfit. There is simulate, simulate, and keep simulating some more til you get consistent results. No need to fit, let alone overfit when you have enough data.
Use overfitting in a better, more relevant context next time. I personally have no data to fit. Only ideas.
Well no, it hasn't... what you described, trying to fit to the present is literally a process of learning, leads to the obvious possibility of overfitting and your model going forwards being flawed...
simulating till you get consistent results - and how do you measure whether you've got consistent results... you're essentially talking about fitting the model...
It's kind of worse than most instances of overfitting as most (almost all) of your datapoints are concentrated in the present. Not to mention, we've not even broached the issue of how this sentient being is monitoring all of what is happening in the present in order to check for consistency with it's own model/simulation.
simulating till you get consistent results - and how do you measure whether you've got consistent results... you're essentially talking about fitting the model...
It's kind of worse than most instances of overfitting as most (almost all) of your datapoints are concentrated in the present. Not to mention, we've not even broached the issue of how this sentient being is monitoring all of what is happening in the present in order to check for consistency with it's own model/simulation.
Again, the AI has access to the modern world. That is the "curve" to "fit"
I didn't know what overfitting was because I've never had to fudge results. And your usage of it was even less clear since we were not talking about data points. I saw you try using an XY graph analogy on page 3 (4?) and was glad you didn't latch on to that.
Do you wanna continue this discussion in the equivalent of 2D charts? Can try if that suits you better.
How are we not when you said:
"here is simulate, simulate, and keep simulating some more til you get consistent results. No need to fit,"
How do you measure consistency?
If you like then simplify to 2d charts... imagine one with a really huge x axis for whcih you've got hardly any data until the tiny slither representing the present... and now you're going to extrapolate forwards (or to the right)
Filled in the bits you chopped off my quote. The bits that came after you were called out. Carbon copy response of you not admitting being wrong in my previous call outs.
You had 3 options: stop replying, reply honestly, or reply like a liar trying to win.
What's wrong with you? Is this your life? PM me, I will edit this post and concede to you if it means so much to win.
Last edited:
Anyone who gives a **** can read the thread and help you out. Otherwise, grab a counsellor.
Not sure how many times I referred to this during the thread but I did it a lot. The way to measure consistency between simulations is convergence.
Right... and how do you do that without data? What are you measuring?
You’d not even heard of overfitting, yet you’re having a convo about AI/ML and fitting a model/simulation to some observations.... If you don’t understand the basics then no wonder you’re having to explain away any flaws with some hand waving comments about magical future tech...
zzzZZZZZ
Convergence is the difference between simulation results
(mentioned many times)
Well it's up to the AI, but I'm sure it would get rid of all the lying, unproductive, manipulators in it's sphere of influence first.
Haha who am I kidding. It would kill us immediately because of people like you.
See this is the issue, it’s going to need to make observations of some form... so we’re back to where we were a few posts back.
Or we can just ignore possible limitations and handwave them away with declarations about magical future technology...
Or we can just ignore possible limitations and handwave them away with declarations about magical future technology...
We're back nowhere.
You're a liar.
And everytime you respond, you think your nonsense is getting pushed out of view.... like someone in a chat room pressing enter to push their chat upwards.
I'll collate all your bs tomorrow.
Handwave yourself to sleep, sweetheart.