I'd like to contribute my amateur hour entry into this thread, although I did administer and develop mssql stuff for awhile.
sure optimizations based on stats, but the stats are the wildcard, in my experience query plans can change suddenly.
Queries are translated into plans according to statistics. However the transforms will be deterministic and should only change one valid plan to another. I could very easily see a neural network manipulate transforms the same way the current programming does, its just that the neural networks are by nature really nicely suitable because the "decisions" are based on training, and this training can be closed world type things like the ai assists that chess engines are now getting. Obviously ai still can't play chess but apparently its very good at ranking board positions just by developing that much statistical info because its training comes not from reading the web, but playing a gazzilian games against itself in a "closed" chess world of its own.
I'm thinking that the ai does "this legal transform of the query plan should be applied to this pattern of data (statistics, cardinality, etc)" simply because the ai encountered it in closed world training, much like the chess thing.
I don't believe that a pure neural network can currently abide by the rules of chess, even with unreasonable amounts of training. Do you have a counter example? I never mind having beliefs challenged with facts lol
edit: I think you could provide an AI with a service or skill that asks "is this move legal" but given all the overhead for llms or whatever to call a "legal move" service external to its process, well then you aren't really searching the tree very efficiently lol.
However if you just let a neural network score boards and the neural network is in the same process well then I think thats the working solution for using neural networks in chess. The net does not need to score all boards either, simple value based heuristics can obviously provide a preliminary list of good boards (moves) at a certain depth or ply and then select the move that produces the board that the neural net scores highest. I kinda sorta think thats whats done today but as usual I could be full of it lol
There's quite a big difference between "AI" and "pure neural networks." No, frontier chess (Alpha zero etc) is not "pure," because there's Monte Carlo tree search and a hard-coded game rules implementation.
Sssshhhh stating this for his whole life was one reason Warren Buffet got villified.
His point was he's an old guy. And Reagan was better than Nixon who was better than Bush junior who was better Trump ... but they all sucked and all of them were the worst thing ever to happen to America.
So yeah, Trump is the worst that has happened to America ... so far.
(and if you point out that "The American age ending" what so many people seem to want will obviously lead to democratic presidents sucking up to Putin as well ...)
Yeah, Buffet is right, the trend has been downward, although I think Bush Sr. might have been the exception. And I do agree that the American age is ending.
With trump tho, it just seems worse. Course the only thing I have to go on is evidence and "walk like a duck-isms" but with Bush jr and before, it seemed like these guys at least appeared patrotic and they didn't look so malignantly treasonous and I think they put forth the idea that while they were conservative, at least the pretense was that they honored the office and the constitution. so since that is gone the progress toward national decline now seems to be a deliberate operation on behalf of people who are no longer interested in democracy. This is new to me.
Yes but if Bush Sr listened to his wife, and additionally, his wife loved him enough to not leave him, thats something right? Or do you think someone with Barbara Bush's elevated love of america lost that love long enough to marry Bush Sr given that there's a theory that he was a bad person too?
I still offer the alternate theory that Bush Sr. was indeed a pause in the GOP's descent into the current realm of evil and contempt for the population of our country. Hell, I read trump doesn't even like his own voters and that rings so true haha
The GOP got so devoid of patriotism so fast it put the Democrats to shame.
I haven't been able to trust any political parties for a while.
After Obama, the GOP couldn't elevate anybody, all they could do is sink so low that only the worthless attention-getting blowhards were left standing.
I was in Texas before during and after Bush Sr was Governor, and distinctly remember the way he was not good enough for Texas before he became not good enough for America. But who is? The further back you go, a political figure is more like a normal person, usually.
The parties have always been the bad influence over the man until they got so bad that Trump made the boldest example as the party dropped the ball and let the man be an even worse influence on the party.
I watched both parties prove their incompetence in my lifetime and witnessed the outcome on a daily basis in real time. Confirmation all took place in the last part of the 20th century. Well first a warning shot from offshore when the Communist Party of Cuba proved their incompetence. Mao was an echo in the distance. Then after a number of years comes the GOP, China picks up the ball the first time, and not that many years later the Democrats. In there somewhere the Soviet Communists gave up the ghost, and where substitutes exist they're still pretty sketchy.
The Chinese Communists are incompetent as ever, that hasn't changed for the longest time, but now they look like a bastion of stability compared to the chaos other parties seek out or tolerate.
The thing in common with the shithole approach is when there's anything like a dictator no matter what they call themselves.
We may already have the hindsight needed to pinpoint the extent of the "American Century" as we knew it. Hard to drag it into the 21st century very far when the parties which built it haven't been with us for so long.
One thing nobody can deny from any party today, I've said it before and that's a big thing that makes people talk about the death of the American Age not just outside the borders or overseas but domestically. Every single day Trump comes on TV and hammers home the fact that Obama was the final President to be recognized as the "leader of the free world". And the party has packed the government with minions in lockstep who can only iterate "what's a Free World?" You can't paint a pretty picture here.
The American Age either likely paused, perhaps quite a bit before Obama, or definitely right afterward, and whether this was a near-fatal injury or a morbid conclusion, it's been quite a while and it's starting to smell too far decomposed for as many people to ignore as there were.
In the US at least, removing safe and trustworthy sources of information is a goal, I can tell this by listening to politicians lambasting media companies and the hostility shown toward reporters.
democracy is imperfect, I like to view public hearings as helping nudge democracy back toward functionality. Heck humanities very stewardship of our only home in the universe is currently a very dumb process but do we have to delete the stewardship and care, can't we try to improve things, have hearings so we can better pursue solutions to problems?
I agree with this, I'm thinking more along the line of debate mistake. I make them, I always invite corrections and I think the willingness to speak on terms of your debate opponent smooths the debate process. Sometimes it does get a bit impractical, heh debating libertarians often involves learning whole new versions of english lol
Still I think you will be more successful if you put forward your caveat on definitions ahead of time, nothing is to be gained during a debate by preemptively declaring your victory, so if I were to suggest improvements to rhetoric, I'd examine my own use of "the fact is that" type things and make sure that what I describe during these uses are indeed facts agreed upon by the debate participants.
Like if I were a libertarian, instead of declaring taxation is theft, I would offer a "wouldn't you agree" and this way we debate participants share a goal of honing in to the fundamental disagreement at stake and I can tell you in my experiences it often comes down to a lack of shared values instead of facts in dispute.
> the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities."
it was a small load of text easily digested, and the word "sovereign" is right there in it very early on. Your argument would be better accepted if you tossed in that you disagree with the characterization and have an opinion what YOU think sovereign entities are. Declarations of fact should only be used when what you are declaring is indeed a fact.
>In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
According to the text you're replying to, this is also untrue. In the future, I would recommend something like "while the 10th amendment talks about states being sovereign entities, in practical terms the federal government has jurisdiction over some matters involving states" or something like that. Its fine to voice opinions, but declaring your opinions "fact", well good luck with that hehehe
sure sure but just don't give kids internet access problem solved. All these problems are because we insist on giving kids internet access then try to ban them from internet sites. Its all just very stupid.
sure optimizations based on stats, but the stats are the wildcard, in my experience query plans can change suddenly.
Queries are translated into plans according to statistics. However the transforms will be deterministic and should only change one valid plan to another. I could very easily see a neural network manipulate transforms the same way the current programming does, its just that the neural networks are by nature really nicely suitable because the "decisions" are based on training, and this training can be closed world type things like the ai assists that chess engines are now getting. Obviously ai still can't play chess but apparently its very good at ranking board positions just by developing that much statistical info because its training comes not from reading the web, but playing a gazzilian games against itself in a "closed" chess world of its own.
I'm thinking that the ai does "this legal transform of the query plan should be applied to this pattern of data (statistics, cardinality, etc)" simply because the ai encountered it in closed world training, much like the chess thing.
Just a theory tho feel free to correct!
reply