> What I want to see is mathematicians employ the same rigor of journalists using abbreviations: define (numerically) your notation, or terminology, the first time you use it, then feel free to use it as notation or jargon for the remainder of the paper.
They already do this. That is how we all learn notation. Not sure what you mean by numerically though, a lot of concepts cannot be defined numerically.
Well, obviously they will be confused because you jumped from a square of numbers to a bunch of operations. They’d be equally confused if you presented those operations numerically. I am not sure what it is you want to prove with that example. I am also not sure that a child can actually understand what a matrix is if you just show them some numbers (i.e., will they actually understand that a matrix is a linear transformer of vectors and the properties it has just by showing them some numbers?)
I know it is a matrix, the notation is not confusing at all. I am saying that the concept of a matrix as a set of numbers arranged in a rectangles and the concept of operations on a matrix are very different things, the confusion will not come from notation.
This is funny. “Mathematics notation is confusing to me because I refuse to learn it. I refuse to learn it because mathematics notation is confusing to me.” Okay sure, be happy with yourself.
The article does not complain about notation. It describes how the different fields of mathematics are so deep and so abstract that it’s hard to understand them as a professional mathematician in a different field. That’s a hard problem worthy of discussion, but as the article says, it’s not as much a problem of notation or of explanations, rather than it’s just intrinsically difficult and complex because these are abstract and deep fields.
The only thing that sentence says is that it’s impossible to understand math without understanding the language of math and how it is constructed. Not sure how that is controversial or gatekeeping. If you are annoyed at that comment saying “learn” instead of “be taught”, I think that’s a pedantic argument because the argument wasn’t about that at all.
Again, learning notation is part of the process of learning math. No one is gatekeeping anything, at no point you need to do an exam or magically be aware of notation that you never saw. Every book and every class will define new notation at the beginning, in most cases they will do so even when there’s no new notation. I am not sure what your argument is.
That’s a very good gate to keep. Some things are just meant to be gatekept so that the cranks and dilettantes that wastes everyone’s time can stay far outside.
I wonder why so many people are under the impression that the notation is what is keeping them away and if only the notation was easier then the underlying concepts would be clear. For example, if you don't know what the pullback of a differential form is, it doesn't matter if I write it in clear text or if I write the common notation φ^* ω.
> It's a domain reserved for a few high priests inducted into the craft and completely inaccessible to everyone else.
It's a domain reserved for people who want to learn it, and there's ton of resources to learn it. Expecting to understand it without learning it does not make any sense.
φ^* ω is just 2 weird symbols. There are tons of symbols to learn. I gave up trying to learn the Russian alphabet after a few days so why do u think I am capable of memorizing the Greek one?
The theories are learnable, making sense of all the weird symbols is what's breaking my brain. I tried to get into set theory thrice now, not happening with all the math lingo, hieroglyphs and dry ass content. Learning can be incredibly fun if it was designed fun. Math is a dry and slow process. Make it fun, make it readable and people will be capable to learn it easier.
> why do u think I am capable of memorizing the Greek one
No one memorizes the Greek alphabet. We just learn it as we go because it’s useful to have different types of letters to refer to different types of objects. That’s it.
> I tried to get into set theory thrice now, not happening with all the math lingo, hieroglyphs and dry ass content.
That sounds like you’re trying to learn a specific field without actually having any of the prerequisites to learn it. I don’t know what you’re specifically referring to when you say “set theory” as that’s an incredibly wide field, and depending on what you’re trying to learn it can be quite technical.
> Learning can be incredibly fun if it was designed fun. Math is a dry and slow process.
This sounds like someone complaining that getting to run a marathon is tiresome and hard. Yes, teaching mathematics can always be improved and nothing is perfect, but it will still be hard work.
I'm not sure that symbols are the thing actually keeping you away. Clear text functions might not be as clear, as it will be harder to scan and it will still contain names that you might not be familiar with. Those "weird symbols" are not there because people liked to make weird symbols. No one likes them, it's just that it makes things easier to understand.
I'm surprised at how could you get at this conclusion. Formalisms, esoteric language and syntax are hard for everyone. Why would people invest in them if their only usefulness was gatekeeping? Specially when it's the same people who will publish their articles in the open for everyone to read.
A more reasonable interpretation is that those fields use those things you don't like because they're actually useful to them and to their main audience, and that if you want to actually understand those concepts they talk about, that syntax will end up being useful to you too. And that a lack of syntax would not make things easier to understand, just less precise.
3blue1brown, while they create great content, they do not go as deep into the mathematics, they avoid some of the harder to understand complexities and abstractions. Don't take me wrong, it's not a criticism of their content, it's just a different thing than what you'd study in a mathematics class.
Also, an additional thing is that videos are great are making people think they understand something when they actually don't.
The interview works as intended because the main priority is to avoid hiring people who will be a negative for the company. Discarding a small number of good candidates is an acceptable tradeoff.
> So what are we afraid of? That people are going to copy paste from AI outputs and we won't notice the difference with someone that really knows their stuff inside out? I don't think that's realistic.
Candidates could also have an AI listening to the questions and giving them answers. There are other ways that they could be in the process without copy/pasting blindly.
> To me it's always been about how someone reasons, how someone communicates, people understanding the foundations (data structure theory, how things scale, etc).
Exactly, that's why I feel like saying "AI is not allowed" makes it all more clear. As interviewers we want to see these abilities you have, and if candidates use an AI it's harder to know what's them and what's the AI. It's not that we don't think AI is an useful tool, it's that it reduces the amount of signal we get in an interview; and in any case there's the assumption than the better someone performs the better they could use AI.
Generalisable how? The model completely hallucinates invalid input, it's not even high quality and required CSGO to work. What's the output you expect from this and what alternatives are there?
None of those questions are relevant are they? I get the impression you've already decided this isnt good enough, which is basically agreeing with everyone else. No one is talking about what it's capable of today. Read the thread again. We're imagining the great probability a few permutations later this thing will basically be The Matrix.
It did not require CSGO, that was simply one of their examples. The very first video in the link shows a bunch of classic Arati games, and even the video which is showing CSGO is captioned "DIAMOND's diffusion world model can also be trained to simulate 3D environments, such as CounterStrike: Global Offensive (CSGO)" — I draw your attention to "such as" being used rather than "only".
And I thought I was fairly explicit about video data, but just in case that's ambiguous: the stuff you record with your phone camera set to video mode, synchronised with the accelerometer data instead of player keyboard inputs.
As for output, with the model as it currently stands, I'd expect a 24h training video at 60fps to be "photorealisic and with similar weird hallucinations". Which is still interesting, even without combining this with a control net like Stable Diffusion can do.
You do the same thing at a larger scale, and instead of video game footage you use a few million hours of remote controlled drone input in the real world.
To answer your question directly, the benefit is that we could make something different from counter strike.
You see, there are these things called "proof of concept"s that are meant to not be a product, but instead show off capabilities.
Counterstrike is an example, meant to show off complex capabilities. It is not meant to show how the useful thing of these models is to literally recreate counterstrike.
Which capabilities are being shown off here? The ability to take an already existing world-model and take lots of compute to have a worse, less correct model?
The capability to have mostly working, real time generation of images that represent a world model.
If that capability is possible, then it could be possible to take 100 examples of seperate world models that exist, and then combine those world models together in interesting ways.
Combining together world models is an obvious next step (IE, not showed off in this proof of concept. But it is a logical/plausible future capability).
Having multiple world models combined together in new and interesting ways, is almost like creating an entirely new world model, even though thats not exactly the same.
Gosh I’m so excited for AAA games to get _even more garbage_ once this gets good enough for investor-driven studios to start slinging out AI driven, hyper-derivative, low-effort slop with even less effort.
We all thought Sports-Game $CURRENT_YEAR or CoD/MW MicroTransaction-Garbage was bottom of the barrel, a whole new world of fresh hell awaits us!
You have it all wrong. It's not going to be AAA studios doing this. Instead, it will be randos who have a cool/fun concept that they want to try out with a couple friends.
Sure, most will be bad. But there might be some gems in there that go viral.
Making it easier for regular people to experiment with games is a good thing.
Or even better, what if this allows people to throw something together to see if a game mechanic is fun, and once it's tested out, then they can make the game for "real".
Allowing quicker experimentation times is also a good thing.
You'd have to have the rights to do the training wouldn't you ? Or does that mean I should close off all of my creations legally just so you can't use them ?
I don't have a problem with you using this with a Camera and the real world or your creations ; but I do have a problem when people are able to use someone's work and use these blend and call them original.
It's just as I would have taken a 3d model static mesh, apply some blend on it and call it my own.
> you'd have to have the rights to do the training wouldn't you ?
Thats undecided by the courts. Everyone is training using other people's data right now though, and very few companies are even being sued (let alone have finished the multi-year process to actually be punished for it).
> Or does that mean I should close off all of my creations
When you put something out there, you should expect that other people are going to use those creations. Almost certainly in many ways that you don't approve over.
Don't release something publicly if you don't want other people to use it.
> but I do have a problem
Your anger isn't particularly useful. What are you going to do about it? This particular proof of concept model was made with 1 single GPU running for 2 weeks. You can't stop that.
> It's just as I would have taken a 3d model static mesh, apply some blend on it and call it my own.
Something that I am sure many people are doing all the time, already. Transforming and using other people's content is as old as the internet. AI does little to change that.
You misunderstand that I'm also a consumer and that I look upon these things. If I see an someone bring up some AI stuff and call themselves an artist I know how I look at them.
They already do this. That is how we all learn notation. Not sure what you mean by numerically though, a lot of concepts cannot be defined numerically.