* Posts by Dominic Connor, Quant Headhunter who wrote this article, really, honest

3 posts • joined 24 Jul 2017

Why you'll never make really big money as an AI dev

Dominic Connor, Quant Headhunter who wrote this article, really, honest

Re: What is "deterministic", who cares anyway

Note I was talking about countable sets like integers, primes etc. As you say they aren't *that* big compared to the set of Reals (or the set of sets of Reals, etc).

Howevever he was clearling talking of "infinite orders of magnitude", multiplying by 10, hyowever many times you do it is merely countably infinite.

Dominic Connor, Quant Headhunter who wrote this article, really, honest

Re: "Backward chaining is appearing as a “new” technique"

Blackboard systems are very *1970s*, like my taste in Music.

Dominic Connor, Quant Headhunter who wrote this article, really, honest

What is "deterministic", who cares anyway

It's a trivial result in CompSci that the set of outcomes that you can achieve with non-deterministic computers is exactly the same as with deterministic, Monte Carlo and other ND techniques are merely easier to program.

Also of course, nothing has infinrite states, not even the quantum vacuum 'nothing'. We live in quantised universe, the numbers are large of course, but not infinite. I've even written some really bad SF on the consequences of that.

Even if "infinite" orders of magnitude meant anything, we're not that many from human complexity and even with just the faux monentum left after Moore's law we will hit that in the 2020s even without any theoretical breakthroughs.

As others have shared, you do need some maths upgrades.

Firstly "infinite orders of magnitude" is *exactly* the same as "inifite integers", "infinite prime numbers" or "infinite multiples of 42". It's call computability, a decent universities that's first year CompSci, even ar Reading "University" some students have heard of this.

Second "watts per hour" is a perflectly reasonable physical unit. *FOR ACCELERATION* A computer that ran at 20 watts per hour would within a year be the same temperature of as the core of a nuclear reactor. At 24*365 = 8760 hours per year, * 20 = 175,200 watts. Assume you live for 80 years you'd be over 14 megawatts. You would literally go blind if you looked at any 80 year old within 100 metres, and if you had sex with an octogenarian you'd be getting fatal radiation as well as being cooked.

If you look at the simplified section in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law you will see that it quickly moves to a topic of "Temperature of the Sun", which is valid because that's about where you'd be given a 0.2 square metre surface area for the brain.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021