zogwarg

joined 1 year ago
[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Hacky Manual parallelization22-b.jq

Massive time gains with parallelization + optimized next function (2x speedup) by doing the 3 xor operation in "one operation", Maybe I prefer the grids ^^:

#!/usr/bin/env jq -n -f

#────────────────── Big-endian to_bits ───────────────────#
def to_bits:
  if . == 0 then [0] else { a: ., b: [] } | until (.a == 0;
      .a /= 2 |
      if .a == (.a|floor) then .b += [0]
                          else .b += [1] end | .a |= floor
  ) | .b end;
#────────────────── Big-endian from_bits ────────────────────────#
def from_bits: [ range(length) as $i | .[$i] * pow(2; $i) ] | add;

( # Get index that contribute to next xor operation.
  def xor_index(a;b): [a, b] | transpose | map(add);
  [ range(24) | [.] ]
  | xor_index([range(6) | [-1]] + .[0:18] ; .[0:24])
  | xor_index(.[5:29] ; .[0:24])
  | xor_index([range(11) | [-1]] + .[0:13]; .[0:24])
  | map(
      sort | . as $indices | map(
        select( . as $i |
          $i >= 0 and ($indices|indices($i)|length) % 2 == 1
        )
      )
    )
) as $next_ind |

# Optimized Next, doing XOR of indices simultaneously a 2x speedup #
def next: . as $in | $next_ind | map( [ $in[.[]] // 0 ] | add % 2 );

#  Still slow, because of from_bits  #
def to_price($p): $p | from_bits % 10;

# Option to run in parallel using xargs, Eg:
#
# seq 0 9 | \
# xargs -P 10 -n 1 -I {} bash -c './2024/jq/22-b.jq input.txt \
# --argjson s 10 --argjson i {} > out-{}.json'
# cat out-*.json | ./2024/jq/22-b.jq --argjson group true
# rm out-*.json
#
# Speedup from naive ~50m -> ~1m
def parallel: if $ARGS.named.s and $ARGS.named.i  then
   select(.key % $ARGS.named.s == $ARGS.named.i)  else . end;

#════════════════════════════ X-GROUP ═══════════════════════════════#
if $ARGS.named.group then

# Group results from parallel run #
reduce inputs as $dic ({}; reduce (
      $dic|to_entries[]
  ) as {key: $k, value: $v} (.; .[$k] += $v )
)

else

#════════════════════════════ X-BATCH ═══════════════════════════════#
reduce (
  [ inputs ] | to_entries[] | parallel
) as { value: $in } ({};  debug($in) |
  reduce range(2000) as $_ (
    .curr = ($in|to_bits) | .p = to_price(.curr) | .d = [];
    .curr |= next | to_price(.curr) as $p
    | .d = (.d+[$p-.p])[-4:]  | .p = $p # Four differences to price
    | if .a["\($in)"]["\(.d)"]|not then # Record first price
         .a["\($in)"]["\(.d)"] = $p end # For input x 4_diff
  )
)

# Summarize expected bananas per 4_diff sequence #
| [ .a[] | to_entries[] ]
| group_by(.key)
| map({key: .[0].key, value: ([.[].value]|add)})
| from_entries

end |

#═══════════════════════════ X-FINALLY ══════════════════════════════#
if $ARGS.named.s | not then

#     Output maximum expexted bananas      #
to_entries | max_by(.value) | debug | .value

end

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

22!

spoilers!Well it’s not a grid! My chosen language does not have bitwise operators so it’s a bit slow. Have to resort to manual parallelization.

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Updated ReasoningOk it probably works because it isn't bang center but a bit up of center, most other steps most be half half noise vertically, and the reason it doesn;t minimize on an earlier horizontal step (where every step is mostly half half), is because the middle points on the trunk, that don't contribute to the overall product therefore minimizing it even lower.

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Day 14, got very lucky on this one, but too tired to think about why part 2 still worked.

spoiler

#!/usr/bin/env jq -n -R -f

#     Board size     # Our list of robots positions and speed #
[101,103] as [$W,$H] | [ inputs | [scan("-?\\d+")|tonumber] ] |

#     Making the assumption that the easter egg occurs when   #
#           When the quandrant product is minimized           #
def sig:
  reduce .[] as [$x,$y] ([];
    if $x < ($W/2|floor) and $y < ($H/2|floor) then
      .[0] += 1
    elif $x < ($W/2|floor) and $y > ($H/2|floor) then
      .[1] += 1
    elif $x > ($W/2|floor) and $y < ($H/2|floor) then
      .[2] += 1
    elif $x > ($W/2|floor) and $y > ($H/2|floor) then
      .[3] += 1
    end
  ) | .[0] * .[1] * .[2] * .[3];

#           Only checking for up to W * H seconds             #
#   There might be more clever things to do, to first check   #
#       vertical and horizontal alignement separately         #
reduce range($W*$H) as $s ({ b: ., bmin: ., min: sig, smin: 0};
  .b |= (map(.[2:4] as $v | .[0:2] |= (
    [.,[$W,$H],$v] | transpose | map(add) 
    | .[0] %= $W | .[1] %= $H
  ))) 
  | (.b|sig) as $sig |
  if $sig < .min then
    .min = $sig | .bmin = .b | .smin = $s 
  end | debug($s)
)

| debug(
  #    Contrary to original hypothesis that the easter egg    #
  #  happens in one of the quandrants, it occurs almost bang  #
  # in the center, but this is still somehow the min product  #       
  reduce .bmin[] as [$x,$y] ([range($H)| [range($W)| " "]];
    .[$y][$x] = "█"
  ) |
  .[] | add
)

| .smin + 1 # Our easter egg step

And a bonus tree:

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I liked day 13, a bit easy but in the right way.

Edit:

SpoilersAlthough saying "minimum" was a bit evil when all of the systems had exactly 1 solution (not necessarily in ℕ^2), I wonder if it's puzzle trickiness, anti-LLM (and unfortunate non comp-sci souls) trickiness or if the puzzle was maybe scaled down from a version where there are more solutions.

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

re:followupIf you somehow wanted your whole final array it would also require over 1 Peta byte ^^, memoization definetely reccomended.

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 4 points 1 week ago

Day 11

Some hacking required to make JQ work on part 2 for this one.

Part 1, bruteforce blessedly short

#!/usr/bin/env jq -n -f

last(limit(1+25;
  [inputs] | recurse(map(
    if . == 0 then 1 elif (tostring | length%2 == 1) then .*2024 else
      tostring | .[:length/2], .[length/2:] | tonumber
    end
  ))
)|length)

Part 2, some assembly required, batteries not included

#!/usr/bin/env jq -n -f

reduce (inputs|[.,0]) as [$n,$d] ({};     debug({$n,$d,result}) |
  def next($n;$d): # Get next           # n: number, d: depth  #
      if $d == 75                    then          1
    elif $n == 0                     then [1          ,($d+1)]
    elif ($n|tostring|length%2) == 1 then [($n * 2024),($d+1)]
    else #    Two new numbers when number of digits is even    #
      $n|tostring| .[0:length/2], .[length/2:] | [tonumber,$d+1]
    end;

  #         Push onto call stack           #
  .call = [[$n,$d,[next($n;$d)]], "break"] |

  last(label $out | foreach range(1e9) as $_ (.;
    # until/while will blow up recursion #
    # Using last-foreach-break pattern   #
    if .call[0] == "break" then break $out
    elif
      all( #     If all next calls are memoized        #
          .call[0][2][] as $next
        | .memo["\($next)"] or ($next|type=="number"); .
      )
    then
      .memo["\(.call[0][0:2])"] = ([ #                 #
          .call[0][2][] as $next     # Memoize result  #
        | .memo["\($next)"] // $next #                 #
      ] | add ) |  .call = .call[1:] # Pop call stack  #
    else
      #    Push non-memoized results onto call stack   #
      reduce .call[0][2][] as [$n,$d] (.;
        .call = [[$n,$d, [next($n;$d)]]] + .call
      )
    end
  ))
  # Output final sum from items at depth 0
  | .result = .result + .memo["\([$n,0])"]
) | .result

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 11 points 1 week ago

I remember being quite ticked off by her takes about free will, and specifically severly misrepresenting compatibilism and calling philosphers stupid for coming up with the idea.

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

One look day 9 and I had to leave it until after work (puzzles unlock at 2PM for me), it wasn't THAT hard, but I had to leave it until later.

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 1 points 1 week ago

re:10Mwahaha I'm just lazy and did are "unique" (single word dropped for part 2) of start/end pairs.

#!/usr/bin/env jq -n -R -f

([
     inputs/ "" | map(tonumber? // -1) | to_entries
 ] | to_entries | map( # '.' = -1 for handling examples #
     .key as $y | .value[]
   | .key as $x | .value   | { "\([$x,$y])":[[$x,$y],.] }
)|add) as $grid | #           Get indexed grid          #

[
  ($grid[]|select(last==0)) | [.] |    #   Start from every '0' head
  recurse(                             #
    .[-1][1] as $l |                   # Get altitude of current trail
    (                                  #
      .[-1][0]                         #
      | ( .[0] = (.[0] + (1,-1)) ),    #
        ( .[1] = (.[1] + (1,-1)) )     #
    ) as $np |                         #   Get all possible +1 steps
    if $grid["\($np)"][1] != $l + 1 then
      empty                            #     Drop path if invalid
    else                               #
    . += [ $grid["\($np)"] ]           #     Build path if valid
    end                                #
  ) | select(last[1]==9)               #   Only keep complete trails
    | . |= [first,last]                #      Only Keep start/end
]

# Get score = sum of unique start/end pairs.
| group_by(first) | map(unique|length) | add

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Day 9 discussionPart two for me was also very slow until I, speed up the index search by providing a lower bound for the insertion. for every insertion of size "N", I have an array lower = [null, 12, 36, ...], since from the left any time you find free space for a given size, the next time must be at an index at least one larger, which makes it close to being O(N) [assuming search for the next free space is more or less constant] instead of O(N^2), went from about 30s to 2s. https://github.com/zogwarg/advent-of-code/blob/main/2024/jq/09-b.jq

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 4 points 2 weeks ago

Day 8

Al lot of grid index shuffling these past few days! Not too difficult yet though, will this year be gentler or much harsher later?

Part 2 code in JQ#!/usr/bin/env jq -n -R -f

[ inputs / "" ] | [.,.[0]|length] as [$H,$W] |

#----- In bound selectors -----#
def x: select(. >= 0 and . < $W);
def y: select(. >= 0 and . < $H);

reduce (
  [
    to_entries[] | .key as $y | .value |
    to_entries[] | .key as $x | .value |
    [ [$x,$y],. ]  | select(last!=".")
  ] | group_by(last)[] # Every antenna pair #
    | combinations(2)  | select(first < last)
) as [[[$ax,$ay]],[[$bx,$by]]] ({};
  # Assign linear anti-nodes #
  .[ range(-$H;$H) as $i | "\(
    [($ax+$i*($ax-$bx)|x), ($ay+$i*($ay-$by)|y)] | select(length==2)
  )"] = true
) | length

 

Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this)

 

Nitter link

With interspaced sneerious rephrasing:

In the close vicinity of sorta-maybe-human-level general-ish AI, there may not be any sharp border between levels of increasing generality, or any objectively correct place to call it AGI. Any process is continuous if you zoom in close enough.

The profound mysteries of reality carving, means I get to move the goalposts as much as I want. Besides I need to re-iterate now that the foompocalypse is imminent!

Unless, empirically, somewhere along the line there's a cascade of related abilities snowballing. In which case we will then say, post facto, that there's a jump to hyperspace which happens at that point; and we'll probably call that "the threshold of AGI", after the fact.

I can't prove this, but it's the central tenet of my faith, we will recognize the face of god when we see it. I regret that our hindsight 20-20 event is so ~~conveniently~~ inconveniently placed in the future, the bad one no less.

Theory doesn't predict-with-certainty that any such jump happens for AIs short of superhuman.

See how much authority I have, it is not "My Theory" it is "The Theory", I have stared into the abyss and it peered back and marked me as its prophet.

If you zoom out on an evolutionary scale, that sort of capability jump empirically happened with humans--suddenly popping out writing and shortly after spaceships, in a tiny fragment of evolutionary time, without much further scaling of their brains.

The forward arrow of Progress™ is inevitable! S-curves don't exist! The y-axis is practically infinite!
We should extrapolate only from the past (eugenically scaled certainly) century!
Almost 10 000 years of written history, and millions of years of unwritten history for the human family counts for nothing!

I don't know a theoretically inevitable reason to predict certainly that some sharp jump like that happens with LLM scaling at a point before the world ends. There obviously could be a cascade like that for all I currently know; and there could also be a theoretical insight which would make that prediction obviously necessary. It's just that I don't have any such knowledge myself.

I know the AI god is a NeCeSSarY outcome, I'm not sure where to plant the goalposts for LLM's and still be taken seriously. See how humble I am for admitting fallibility on this specific topic.

Absent that sort of human-style sudden capability jump, we may instead see an increasingly complicated debate about "how general is the latest AI exactly" and then "is this AI as general as a human yet", which--if all hell doesn't break loose at some earlier point--softly shifts over to "is this AI smarter and more general than the average human". The world didn't end when John von Neumann came along--albeit only one of him, running at a human speed.

Let me vaguely echo some of my beliefs:

  • History is driven by great men (of which I must be, but cannot so openly say), see our dearest elevated and canonized von Neumann.
  • JvN was so much above the average plebeian man (IQ and eugenics good?) and the AI god will be greater.
  • The greatest single entity/man will be the epitome of Intelligence™, breaking the wheel of history.

There isn't any objective fact about whether or not GPT-4 is a dumber-than-human "Artificial General Intelligence"; just a question of where you draw an arbitrary line about using the word "AGI". Albeit that itself is a drastically different state of affairs than in 2018, when there was no reasonable doubt that no publicly known program on the planet was worthy of being called an Artificial General Intelligence.

No no no, General (or Super) Intelligence is not an completely un-scoped metric. Again it is merely a fuzzy boundary where I will be able to arbitrarily move the goalposts while being able to claim my opponents are!

We're now in the era where whether or not you call the current best stuff "AGI" is a question of definitions and taste. The world may or may not end abruptly before we reach a phase where only the evidence-oblivious are refusing to call publicly-demonstrated models "AGI".

Purity-testing ahoy, you will be instructed to say shibboleth three times and present your Asherah poles for inspection. Do these mean unbelievers not see these N-rays as I do ? What do you mean we have (or almost have, I don't want to be too easily dismissed) is not evidence of sparks of intelligence?

All of this is to say that you should probably ignore attempts to say (or deniably hint) "We achieved AGI!" about the next round of capability gains.

Wasn't Sam the Altman so recently cheeky? He'll ruin my grift!

I model that this is partially trying to grab hype, and mostly trying to pull a false fire alarm in hopes of replacing hostile legislation with confusion. After all, if current tech is already "AGI", future tech couldn't be any worse or more dangerous than that, right? Why, there doesn't even exist any coherent concern you could talk about, once the word "AGI" only refers to things that you're already doing!

Again I reserve the right to remain arbitrarily alarmist to maintain my doom cult.

Pulling the AGI alarm could be appropriate if a research group saw a sudden cascade of sharply increased capabilities feeding into each other, whose result was unmistakeably human-general to anyone with eyes.

Observing intelligence is famously something eyes are SufFicIent for! No this is not my implied racist, judge someone by the color of their skin, values seeping through.

If that hasn't happened, though, deniably crying "AGI!" should be most obviously interpreted as enemy action to promote confusion; under the cover of selfishly grabbing for hype; as carried out based on carefully blind political instincts that wordlessly notice the benefit to themselves of their 'jokes' or 'choice of terminology' without there being allowed to be a conscious plan about that.

See Unbelievers! I can also detect the currents of misleading hype, I am no buffoon, only these hypesters are not undermining your concerns, they are undermining mine: namely damaging our ability to appear serious and recruit new cult members.

view more: next ›