I have pretty sharp productivity/energy/focus fluctuations and often achieve more by waiting for the “inspiration” (so to speak) to come and do tasks quickly than by slogging through low times. But they’re pretty sharp: sometimes something might take me two hours at low tide and ten minutes at high tide.
Then there’s the issue of what to do at low tide.
I’ve tried countless times to adhere to Pomodoro or Jocko Willink-type mindsets that willpower is fickle while discipline equals freedom. But the results don’t seem to be there.
OTOH the other day I heard someone in the Netflix doc about Alberto Nisman’s murder that described a terrorist network as a “matrix”.
I grumped as card-carrying pedants are duty-bound to, but then realized that if there’s a 1:1 correspondence between graphs and (adjacency, incidence) matrices, then there’s very little loss of meaning in referring to graphs as “matrices”. Maybe in some communication contexts it’s even clearer.
That's funny, I would have just chalked it up to "they are using a different sense of the word matrix", knowing that most dictionaries contain multiple definitions of the same word. But nice work making this mental leap, I have never thought about it!
But it's true, you can envision it as a NxN matrix of N terrorists, where the number in cell i,j represent's the strength of the relationship (it's a weighted graph!), and that might actually be useful for something. I don't doubt that "matrix" might actually exist in numeric form in some CIA or military computer somewhere.
Maybe the term Disposition Matrix was more precise and less euphemistic than we were concerned it was. I guess you could compute a kill list from a genuine matrix of dispositions.
A few months ago I was imagining having a square matrix representation for fractions/attenuation of viral loads (e.g. per week) being transferred among a large population. I pictured a sum of isolated groups, after a sort, causing this larger matrix to be composed of a set of on-diagonal square submatrices.
Yes I would think that you are dealing with sparse matrices with little clusters of nonzero values in a model like this.
One could say that I'm "part of a terrorist matrix", and that my value in the matrix is zero. We are all part of a terrorist matrix. I hope the CIA is not reading this, because they probably are not mathy enough to know what I'm talking about, and they may just take my quoted statement at face value, but in a mathematical sense we probably all actually have some nonzero value in our rows and columns of the terrorist matrix. You know someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who is a terrorist. It really just depends how many people and how many degrees of separation you want to include in your matrix.
The examples I have seen tease but are not fully clear on how far GPT-3 can go on tasks that are not in principle text generation tasks.
For example I’ve seen the translation to HTML code demo. Of course, LSTMs already generate quasi compilable code. But the promise seems far better here. Countless “AI” tasks can be conceptualized as entering prompts and receiving code — playing chess, finding logical implications (maybe from tabular data like in Formal Concept Analysis), detecting outliers in columnar/matrix data. How much does GPT do? How much turf beyond chatbots and automatic journalism does it cover?
> How much does GPT do? How much turf beyond chatbots and automatic journalism does it cover?
The real answer to this is that we don't really know just yet. People are still finding ways to represent problems as text completions and feeding them to GPT-3 and seeing what comes out. However there is a hard limit for GPT-3 specificially, and that's its context window. IIRC it can only be prompted with & generate 2048 "BPEs" in total (smaller than a word, but bigger than one character). So in your prompt you could give it a handful of tables, some with outliers, some without, and some metrics after each table concerning outliers. Then the last part of your prompt is a table you'd like the metrics for and let GPT-3 fill it in. Does this work? The answer is a strong maybe, lol. But you're so limited in space that for some use-cases it's more likely you'd need to wait for later iterations of this approach that raise or remove the length limitation.
I’m using lattice (line) diagrams to understand intersection concepts like this. They’re easy to generate from cross tables using FCA tools such as the “concepts”
Python available in pip.
There’s an episode of “Star Trek: the Next Generation” where Scotty, the engineer from the original Shatner Star Trek tells the next-century engineer LaForge that this is how it’s done. You never tell the captain all that you have so you keep something to squeeze at the fatal moment.
Then there’s the issue of what to do at low tide.
I’ve tried countless times to adhere to Pomodoro or Jocko Willink-type mindsets that willpower is fickle while discipline equals freedom. But the results don’t seem to be there.