Tony Vladusich

I'm a computational neuroscientist & software engineer. Colors, photos, brains, nature, science, software & chess, preferably all at the same time!

Public Key

npub173x9mumh8heh8ndfsc07j2gylwtx950vy5u9e98730ksg4thlwpqgrfeej

NIP-05 Address

TonyVladusich@mathstodon-xyz.mostr.pub

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs0gnza7dmnmumnek5cv8lf9yz0h9nz68kz2wzujnlghmgy24mlhqsqqqnyk

Author Public Key

npub173x9mumh8heh8ndfsc07j2gylwtx950vy5u9e98730ksg4thlwpqgrfeej

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-04-19 05:53:35

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
The Democratic Party is also culpable in this fiasco. They’re clearly been happy to maintain the status quo of the massive fiscal divide of the ultra rich and everyone else.

2025-04-19 01:50:42

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
The game of chess can be a brutal reality check for folks who believe they are good at objectively evaluating their own ideas! 🤣

2025-04-18 18:50:42

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
"I basically spent three years trying to prove this wrong. And I couldn't prove it wrong."
This is science, par excellence. Sadly most folks will not recognise it as such.

2025-04-12 02:26:46

A primer on "Mid-Level Vision" by Bart Anderson.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)31593-3
Anderson has been at the forefront of research on surface perception for decades now. He's shown over and over how subtle manipulations to images can transform our percepts in dramatic ways.
The figure here shows how the covariation of shading with object boundary conditions triggers either a perception of a 3-D corrugated surface of uniform albedo with variable illumination (left) or a 2-D surface with variable albedo and uniform illumination.
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/322/609/766/595/814/original/0d665343d2a42169.png

2025-04-10 01:31:15

- reply

@nprofile…qmju
It does not (need to be said).

2025-04-09 20:36:01

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…q7zp
“This woman read all the comments... My god. She suffered so much for our sins.”
🤣

2025-04-09 20:31:10

- reply

@nprofile…n0jg @nprofile…fa4k
Thanks for the reply, Ethan. That is … rather a large discrepancy! How are time dilation effects in voids usually measured, if you don’t mind me asking?

2025-04-09 20:22:40

- reply

@nprofile…q7zp @nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…n0jg
Oh wow, I even think I’ve seen this one before! 🤣

2025-04-09 05:59:52

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
💯 Thanks for the suggestion!

2025-04-09 05:20:40

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…n0jg
It’s funny but something about the way you replied “pls …” felt disapproving so I dug deeper and found this old thread where you discuss this stuff with some other experts including Ethan.
There’s definitely something about the tendency to lower the skepticism bar for fields outside your sphere of expertise. I can’t imagine any non expert successfully navigating the minefield that is neuroscience and vision research without guard rails!
Oh well, I DID say I found the idea fascinating and elegant, not necessarily correct! 🤣
https://mathstodon.xyz/@johncarlosbaez/113782496776496048

2025-04-09 02:00:38

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
I found this popular press article by Ethan Siegel claiming that Wiltshire’s idea cannot be correct. I’m of course not sufficiently expert to judge the refutation but the tone was a tad contemptuous it seemed to me.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/lumpy-explain-dark-energy/

2025-04-09 00:43:37

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Good idea!

2025-04-09 00:37:15

I find this work by David L. Wiltshire fascinating and elegant: it may be that dark energy does not actually exist and that measurements of the expansion rate of the universe are better fit by a model based on space-time warping at cosmological scales, consistent with the strong equivalence principle at the heart of Einstein's theory of General Relativity.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.1183

2025-04-06 02:08:01

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
You know things are bad when the populace welcomes a pro-IRS sign! 🤣

2025-03-31 22:46:19

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Yeah the sleep walking metaphor is an apt one. I invoke it a lot these days in order to remind myself and others that we have agency and should always try to define our own path through life.

2025-03-31 20:46:53

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
As a non-US citizen, thanks for documenting the emergence of dictatorship in your country, and pointing folks towards actions they can take.
What is going on saddens many of us non-US citizens beyond words but we are effectively powerless to act. It’s nice to know there’s folks like you fighting in our behalf.

2025-03-30 20:33:56

- reply

@nprofile…rfqu
Haha, when I finish writing it and get it published. Could be a while tbh! I work full time so the book is a labour of love. I just created a title page to what it looks like and I thought it was pretty so I posted it without comment.
Thanks for the interest though. I’ll be sure to get you an advanced copy!

2025-03-30 10:49:57

https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/250/991/575/190/299/original/25dd253b514c9824.png

2025-03-28 22:39:23

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…yu7x
Ok, that looks pretty fucking wild!

2025-03-25 08:58:13

- reply

@nprofile…yu7x
jfc, the stupidity knows no lower bound.

2025-03-22 00:39:54

- reply

@nprofile…qmju
I love that Box quote and have used it as a guiding principle throughout my scientific career.
Amusingly I happened to mention it once to my post doctoral advisor, Stephen Grossberg, who famously more or less invented the field of neural networks. To my surprise he would not accept the premise and argued with me how his own work disproved it. We never really agreed on anything after that.

2025-03-17 02:32:30

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Welcome to Nazi America, land of the oppressed, home of the coward.

2025-03-15 23:34:09

- reply

@nprofile…qmju
I've encountered one resounding real life situation wherein failure to correctly identity and consider objectively falsifiable paths leads to both immediate & catastrophic consequences: namely, in the game of chess.
In chess, when one considers a candidate move, it is absolutely critical to consider all the possible alternative moves of the opponent.
Since we are human, we cannot generally consider the entire set of candidate responses in finite time (indeed, neither can any existing computer). (There are exceptional circumstances, however, such as when a line is "forcing", meaning that the opponent only has one legal move at each iteration of the sequence.)
In short, a failure to falsify the viability of a candidate move, or set of moves, will often have a catastrophic result on one's game, especially when playing against a computer.
One only need fail to consider a single potential effective counter-move for the entire line to collapse as a successful one.
Chess players call this process of identifying a weak link in the opponent's chain of reasoning a "refutation."

2025-03-15 22:26:59

- reply

@nprofile…qmju
The Wittgenstein quote is cute. In my role as a software developer I always tell folks that a good unit test of a functions is a tautology: any test you write should seem trivial and the result inevitable.
Most of the time this doesn’t happen and we discover bugs in our functions! 🤣

2025-03-15 09:18:50

- reply

@nprofile…yu7x
Your fridge is broken, dude. 🤣

2025-03-07 00:23:56

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Haha, I get it. It’s why I keep posting about things that interest me too. Need to keep sane somehow.
Colour perception research needs folks like you, or at least folks like those who you’ve trained.
It most certainly is well below, not above, your pay grade! 😻

2025-03-06 21:55:27

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
It's a trap, John!
The demonstration below does not use the same sRGB coordinates as Perano, but close enough to make the point that, properly speaking, "colour" (correctly spelled with a "u" 🤣) is most definitely a perceptual construct, not a physical one.
It is, of course, a cartoon version of the famous "dress" phenomenon, depicting how it is possible to perceive the same sRGB triplet as a cloth material that is either blue or white, depending on the surrounding context (source: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19362881).
There is no harm in disregarding the distinction ... until there is: which is to say that folks who construct theories of "colour perception" have generally been hopelessly seduced by the conflation of physics and perception.
I've written extensively about the problem and how we might collectively avoid such traps. But the trap is absurdly seductive!
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/117/671/288/145/477/original/4514240712be2eb5.png

2025-03-06 21:33:38

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
“The color he got is sRGB(148,177,255). And according to the experts who sip latte all day and make up names for colors, this color is called ‘Perano’.”
🤣

2025-03-04 20:18:33

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
typo 'permutation represention'

2025-03-02 05:09:12

In a world in which everything is completely enshitified, anything that you produce of quality is worthwhile and valuable. Anything at all.

2025-02-28 22:07:51

- reply

@nprofile…e5g0
Yup, I thought that the first time around. Now it's just manifest to all.

2025-02-20 09:26:24

- reply

@nprofile…yu7x
So no Ringworld?! Noooooooo

2025-02-19 20:11:01

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
“ If somebody wanted someone to *really* clearly explain what's going on, they would pay me. I'd be happy to do it!
But maybe they don't want this. Maybe the mystique of quantum computers is part of what sells the technology to investors.”
💯

2025-02-16 09:58:55

- reply

@nprofile…yu7x
Haha, the former, I shan’t stoop so low as to frequent the latter!

2025-02-16 07:48:49

- reply

@nprofile…yu7x
That webpage is a fucking abomination.

2025-02-16 04:58:19

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
I guess black holes are an area of physics where quantum mechanics and general relativity are both needed to gain a deep understanding of what’s really happening?

2025-02-16 04:51:42

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Oh, where can I read more about that experiment?

2025-02-16 03:04:47

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Are there any compelling lines of experimental or theoretical evidence to conclude that "Gravity ... is probably quantum-mechanical in nature"?

2025-02-16 01:50:12

@nprofile…fa4k
I have another question about your book. On p 379 you write the following:
"Einstein's explanation of gravity says, first of all, that gravity is not really a force! In other words, the natural state of motion is free fall, and it takes a force to create a deviation from free fall. To put it dramatically but quite correctly, there is not really a force of gravity pulling us down as we stand on the floor; instead, the electromagnetic repulsion of the molecules on the floor are pushing our feet up! (It is amusing to get into the habit of feeling things this way.) Geometrically speaking, free fall traces out a path in spacetime that is as straight as possible at every step of the way, a so-called 'geodesic'.• It is only the curvature of spacetime that makes these geodesics look different from straight lines in Minkowski spacetime. For this reason, the very notion of a 'gravitational field', as some sort of force field á la Newton, is misleading and not really appropriate to general relativity. There is only the metric, which, as we now show, determines the notion of a geodesic via the Levi-Civita connection."
Given that gravity "is not a force", then why have physicists put so much effort into attempting to quantise gravity? If the above is correct, surely the attempt to define the graviton in terms of a quantum field theory must prove fruitless?

2025-02-15 07:31:59

- reply

@nprofile…y63h
We will win, in the end.
It will be a hell of a fight, with many losses.
But we will win.
The enemy is ideologically weak.
They know only force.
They know not finesse, wit, charm and strategy.
They know not wonder & curiosity.
They will lose, and we will win.

2025-02-11 23:08:47

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Ah, well, to be clear: the fields would model abstract computational concepts, not electromagnetic or similar fields per se. For example, it’s possible to model global aspects of human colour vision by solving a variant of the Poisson equation applied to gradients of the image captured on the photosensitive surface of the retina.

2025-02-11 20:38:24

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Ah, I can relate to him then! 🤣
The book is wonderful, btw. I just started reading it and I'm really looking forward to developing a deeper understanding of some of the ideas at the heart of modern physics / field theory.
Thanks for writing a text that is accessible to non-experts!
I think many of these ideas are germane to my interests in computational vision.
Applying field theoretic ideas to understand the computational operations of the brain will, I strongly suspect, turn into a fruitful avenue of research over the next century.
It's remarkable to me that there has been almost no decent work done along these lines so far.

2025-02-11 08:32:46

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
I just read this quote while reading your book Gauge Fields, Knots & Gravity, and I thought immediately of what you said above 🤣:
And it is a noteworthy fact that ignorant men have long been in advance of the learned about vectors.
Ignorant people, like Faraday, naturally think in vectors. They know nothing of their formal manipu-
lation, but if they think about vectors, they think of them as vectors, that is, directed magnitudes. No
ignorant man could or would think about the three components of a vector separately, and disconnected
from one another. That is a device of learned mathematicians, to enable them to evade vectors. The
device is often useful, especially for calculating purposes, but for general purposes of reasoning the
manipulation of scalar components instead of the vector itself is entirely wrong.
-Oliver Heaviside

2025-01-18 22:11:30

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
I have a couple of questions about your blog post.
Firstly, where can I learn more about magnetic diffusion, or more generally, vector valued diffusion?
I'm very interested in this idea but I can't find a good intuition for the diffusion of a vector valued function in the plane. For example, when the field diffuses out to points where the field was previously zero, is the diffusion somehow the vector average of the inducing non-zero vectors?
I've searched Wikipedia but can't find a nice, basic explanation for how vector-valued diffusion might work.
Secondly, and more trivially, I got confused by the seemingly twice defined quantity in your post shown in the screenshots below. They seem like the same quantity but with two different names?
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/113/851/644/447/507/495/original/43f91e30d118ae8e.png
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/113/851/644/494/254/173/original/4b55551d4f9b5c72.png

2025-01-18 21:32:39

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
The plant has been cuckolded!

2025-01-04 01:26:33

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Thanks for your patient and clear reply!
I additionally found this discussion thread helpful: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/817126/explain-to-a-non-physicist-what-goes-wrong-when-trying-to-quantize-gravity

2025-01-04 00:25:17

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…m2ru @nprofile…3yjd
Is it not a little strange that GR is so well-defined in the classical domain but virtually undefinable in the quantum domain?
What is the fundamental roadblock to quantisation? Is it the assumption of a smooth space time manifold in GR?
Again, sorry if this is all numpty level stuff!

2025-01-03 00:14:22

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Haha, well, I don't wish to come across as dismissive or overly dogmatic. We do know that Corvids exhibits behaviours that we might call "curiosity" and "play". I'd have to read the primary research source to make a genuinely informed judgement.
Speaking generally, however, one is probably well advised to treat reports of animal intelligence with a healthy dose of skepticism, as we humans do have a tendency to anthropomorphise!
If you need any convincing of that, consider the classic cautionary tale of Hans the clever horse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

2025-01-02 21:13:44

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
The video shows that these birds are being trained with a food reward. This is, of course, standard in animal studies. So I'm not surprised that animals would be competing to access the apparatus. I would be surprised if the animals accessed the apparatus for entertainment value alone!
For my PhD I trained honeybees to access a tunnel for a sugar water reward. Bees can communicate to hive mates the approximate location of local food rewards via their "round dance". I soon found my tunnel entrance being inundated with bees from the same hive. If traces of sugar water were somehow left in the tunnel overnight, then I would return in the morning too find various species of ants swarming over my experimental apparatus!
It's quite remarkable how even animals with brains smaller than a sesame seed can learn to access a food rich area (as we've probably all experienced in our own homes at some point).

2025-01-02 00:12:53

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Haha, that’s an unfortunate lesson to learn during your PhD!

2025-01-01 22:49:33

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
I am not sure what I had in mind when I wrote that comment, lol.
I guess I'm interested in the question of the origin of the parameter values, which, as I understand it, need to be measured experimentally, as there is no means to calculate them from theory alone?
Thanks for the link! It is very thorough in explaining the nature of these parameters.
One remark struck me as perhaps somehow outdated:
"The Higgs has not yet been seen — at least not with any certainty — but of the 26 fundamental constants of nature, 22 describe it or its interactions with other particles! Isn't that weird???"

2025-01-01 22:43:58

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Yeah, absolutely fair enough!
I agree that any modelling of the natural world is necessarily going to come with assumptions, some of which will appear to be strongly justified and others not so much.
I've followed the fundamental physics field(s) from the outside for 30 years and had somehow formed the impression that GR and the SM were very rigorously formulated.
And compared to our modelling of (say) biology, they certainly are. But I suppose I was surprised to learn about these "loose threads" in physics that, when tugged, suggest a less tightly knit fabric than I had expected.

2025-01-01 04:55:17

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…m2ru
BTW, Peter Woit mentions this thread in his latest post.
A comment from Marty Tysanner mentions work on trying to better understand the parameter values of the SM, but no references.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=14311

2025-01-01 04:31:33

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
My definition of hand wavy would probably be something like “we make a bunch of approximations we can't completely justify.” But I take your point wrt the astonishing accuracy of the predictions of the SM!

2025-01-01 03:55:06

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…m2ru
The computations of the anomalous magnetic moment and fine structure constant look ... messy.
TBH, I had not idea fundamental physics, especially the Standard Model, was so ... hand wavy.
It's almost as bad as biology (not really)! 🤣

2024-12-31 19:59:19

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Typo: "But what the simplest theory of quantum gravity"

2024-12-31 06:57:00

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…e5g0
I'm sure you're all over this, John, but I found the Wikipedia entry on source theory to be quite interesting. In particular, the application of the Green's function and Fourier Transform to solving the path integral seems related to some of the PDE problems I've become interested in.
It would be cool to understand how the source theory approach differs from the standard modern approaches to renormalisation and effective field theory. But that might take you too far afield (pun intended) from your goals here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_field

2024-12-31 01:27:04

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Looking at the linked paper I now see this: "At zero momentum transfer, the QED [1] fine structure constant α(0) is very accurately known from the measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and from solid-state physics measurements [2]".
So I guess that answers my question!

2024-12-31 01:25:14

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Just wondering, when you say "the charge of the electron is observed to be larger when we measure it by colliding electrons at very high energies", what are we comparing to?
From the context of the remainder of the post I understood that at higher collision energies we measure higher charges, but do we have a measure of the "bare" electron charge? Is it just the "elementary" charge calculated from standard methods/experiments, such as electrolysis?

2024-12-30 21:11:33

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…e5g0
The Wikipedia entry on QFT is really interesting and well written. Has anybody ever followed Schwinger’s source theory path towards the Standard Model?
I found some fascinating historical tidbits too, including the attached gems. Turns out Schwinger was buried in Mount Auburn cemetery, just down the road from where I used to live. My first daughter was born at Mt Auburn hospital, so that area holds a special place in my heart!
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/113/743/827/786/237/760/original/a2d670979e79372d.png
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/113/743/827/792/917/351/original/f735fe7efa4f666e.png

2024-12-30 11:18:09

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…e5g0
Reading the Wikipedia entry on renormalisation is an eye opener. Seems like Dyson, Dirac and Feynman all had significant reservations about renormalisation?
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/113/741/495/413/294/137/original/2aabb287447a12e6.png

2024-12-29 20:21:16

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…e5g0
Thanks for the details, John. I look forward to your future posts on the topic!

2024-12-29 20:19:07

- reply

@nprofile…e5g0 @nprofile…fa4k
Thanks, that's a super-clear answer!

2024-12-29 05:09:28

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
I was going to ask you: What exactly is the limitation of "the very simplest theory of quantum gravity, which is not renormalizable"?
I guess the next question is: What does renormalisation afford us and why does it fail to provide a complete description of nature?
Sorry if this is all standard and well known stuff. Please feel free to ignore or point to a Wikipedia page etc.

2024-12-27 23:06:26

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Woah, that looks hard core! I know virtually nothing of topological graphs. I will have to read carefully to even understand the basics, and like you I have so many interesting things I like to study.
Nonetheless, this comment of yours in the comments section caught my eye for its truthiness:
“But I’m trying to push ahead on network theory to the point where the results are beautiful enough to satisfy my cravings while also making contact with the complexity of living systems. This is tough, because living systems seem “messy”. I feel they are simply operating at a level of abstraction we’re not yet able to handle mathematically.”

2024-12-27 22:15:23

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Funnily enough, one of the papers I had in mind relies heavily on the graph Laplacian to solve the Laplace equation on a graph. This is particularly useful when one wishes to work on spatial domains in which nodes are non-uniformly distributed w.r.t to the range, such as the complex logarithmic mapping of visual coordinates in human vision. A lot of recent vision work has involved graph theoretic discrete calculus methods. It's a super interesting field but not my area of expertise by any means. So I might ask you questions from time to time, if you don't mind answering them?

2024-12-27 20:39:53

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
The Heras paper also mentions the instantaneous limit, where 𝑐→∞, but that seems not be the limit you are interested in here w.r.t plasma physics.

2024-12-27 20:34:16

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
At the moment I'm mainly interested in elliptic PDE problems, but one would naturally like to extend this into time-dependent problems eventually.
Generally I am interested mainly in the discrete versions of PDE problems as they apply to vision and graphics. There's a long and interesting history there, but the main focus has been on solving the Poisson and/or Laplace equations on some form of mesh or graph data structure. I can cite some examples from the literature if you're interested.

2024-12-27 20:15:52

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k
Personally I find this sort of post very enlightening. For somebody coming from a "wet" science background but an interest in applying "hard" science concepts and solid math to wet science problems, these posts are super insightful and inspirational. Galilean invariance, for example, is such a simple yet powerful concept that unifies all classic mechanics, yet it is just vector arithmetic!
I'd love to have more conversations with you centred around vector calculus and classical mechanics, especially w.r.t to PDEs and boundary value problems.

2024-12-26 21:40:28

- reply

@nprofile…qmju
Did you ever feel similarly in your mathematical studies?
For example, when entering a new subfield did you remain confident that, while you may not have expert domain knowledge, you had the requisite skills and processes in place to tackle the new domain?

2024-12-26 21:32:26

Remarkable how a couple of light and dark patches on a solid flat colour disk can elicit the perception of a sphere!
Ps: these pics are screenshots from the video linked here https://mathstodon.xyz/@TonyVladusich/113721276826193549.
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/113/721/261/551/089/904/original/8103e68a13e93099.png
https://media.mathstodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/113/721/261/639/166/491/original/0d6efd5743c29203.png

2024-12-26 21:27:19

- reply

@nprofile…qmju
Interesting! Have you at any point throughout your career felt imposter syndrome?

2024-12-22 20:27:06

- reply

@nprofile…qmju
I also semi randomly browsed my physical libraries as an undergraduate student. This led me to discover the work of neural modelling pioneer Stephen Grossberg, a finding that eventually changed the course of my career and indeed entire life. I also found so much joy and solace in the library, free of the intricacies and pitfalls of human relationships!

2024-11-24 10:39:57

- reply

@nprofile…yu7x
Do you use Pages for your writing?

2024-11-20 23:53:25

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k @nprofile…hszg
I love this Wilson quote!

2024-11-16 21:30:50

- reply

@nprofile…59k6 @nprofile…m2ru @nprofile…5k3r
haha, Mars was so painful. Somehow I managed to finish the trilogy ... now that I think of it, I'm not sure I did, lol.

2024-11-15 05:35:38

- reply

@nprofile…yu7x
Brotoxic!

2024-11-13 21:41:40

- reply

@npub1c9m…9xjd @npub1jd5…grlk
omg lmao, can we plz add moor "ai"?!

2024-11-10 19:11:46

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
We wait with bated breath for John to do his laundry! 🤣😻

2024-10-29 21:57:02

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
I feel the same way about contemporary psychology and neuroscience: medieval thinking where folks partially glimpse the traps but just can't quite grasp the fundamental insights needed to make genuine progress.

2024-10-21 05:27:20

- reply

@npub1c9m…9xjd @npub1t76…4l63
What version of iOS are you running?

2024-10-09 01:47:17

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
Yep, and obviously neither do I. But as somebody who works in both science and technology, it concerns me greatly to see folks in the latter justify their enshitification of the world in terms of the former (and I do see this daily).

2024-10-09 01:42:43

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
Yep, fair points all!
I also could not really care less who wins prizes of any sort.
My concern in this case is that it seems to me to be part of a politically motivated campaign to legitimise the current AI boom by seeming to ground it in solid science, and that’s more solid than “physics”?!

2024-10-08 23:44:06

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
As you well know, the LIGO example is not an application of theory but an experiment to test theory. It’s not applied physics it’s physics.
The second example, well what can is say, you’ve a valid counter example.
But I think you’re playing devil’s advocate at this point.
I’m certain you know many physicists more deserving of the award.

2024-10-08 23:31:07

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
Fair enough, you could argue it started with physics, although there was a lot of NN research that predated the spin glass and Boltzmann connections. That research was not motivated by physics and was arguably far more advanced than the “physics motivated” work.
But since when do folks receive Nobel prizes for applying existing physics ideas?

2024-10-08 20:53:16

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
With all due respect, John, saying that neural networks research is physics just because somebody kicked up some dust using some physics terminology is not doing either physics or neuroscience research justice.

2024-09-03 21:09:22

- reply

@npub1c9m…9xjd
Every good unit test is a tautology.

2024-08-24 10:41:02

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
That’s so wild!

2024-08-14 21:36:53

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
Hard core math toot?

2024-07-27 21:33:22

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
Wait, is the technique taking advantage of the famous tritone paradox?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone_paradox

2024-07-03 09:46:13

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
Congratulations John, amazing news!

2024-05-20 21:05:51

- reply

@npub1c9m…9xjd
Insert why not both meme here

2024-05-20 11:03:48

- reply

@npub1c9m…9xjd
Yes I am seeing this sort of thing more and more. Apple did indeed insert an enshitification machine in their autocorrect engine. It drives me nuts.

2024-05-07 20:19:35

- reply

@npub15zu…s7lx
Thanks I didn’t know about this story or book. Seems to me in keeping with Kubrick’s obsessive need to control everything about his narrative(s).

2024-04-26 10:49:15

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
Great song and album, no idea why mater want jet to love them!

2024-04-18 07:58:52

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
bad bots, bad bots, whattya gonna do when they come for you?!

2024-03-31 21:30:28

- reply

@npub1knz…c73p
Haha, that’s terrific! Now that is how to make math not dull!

2024-03-20 18:49:16

It’s incredible to me that deep convolutional neural networks and transformers all fail at the outset as models of human vision: they assume translation invariance, which is absent in human vision due to space variance!

2024-03-20 02:25:42

- reply

@npub1xr8…3q0g
Oh fantastic!

2024-03-02 21:14:32

@npub1qtk…xqrw
this is bonkers! another almost-equivalent approach?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_from_zero_crossings