upvote
The data is the code. Training algorithm is the compiler. The weights are the byte code produced to run on the inference VM.
reply
The data is the code is the data. Reality has no distinction between "data" and "code". These terms are categories we impose on systems we design, to make it easier for us to build and reason about them, but they're nothing but mere opinions, and depend less on the system structure, and more on the perspective of the person asking which is which.

This is related to, and possibly equivalent with, the core point of both this story and the original one: computation is independent from substrate.

You can build a computer out of anything, whether it's semiconductors or lasers or meat or magnetic fields or water flowing downhill or abstract thought, and that computer will happily perform the same computation as every other equivalent construct from whatever substrate. That's because computers are ultimately made of math, and we design "real ones" by finding ways to approximate the mathematical constraints with physical systems. But the choice of how to map the math to physical systems is completely arbitrary, and any such mappings are equivalent from POV of information processing ability.

(Of course substrate is not arbitrary from economic POV, which is why we build most of our computers out of silicon and plastic, and make it work with electric current and lasers.)

reply
> Reality has no distinction between "data" and "code"

yes, yes, ostensibly the universe is built on lisp.

But we all know that it was hacked together with a lot of perl[1].

[1] you all know the reference.

reply
One of the best thing I done for my career (as a self taught software developer, but with a degree in electronic engineering) is to learn computation theory.

Computation is math (and a very restricted subset of math). It’s mostly specific sequences of sets manipulation. What sets and what manipulations are defined by people, not by the idea of computation.

The best thing is that as soon as you specify the sequences of manipulation, it become a a set that you can manipulate. That can be a difficult concept to grasp, but that’s what helps in designing notation that are more appropriate for the human mind to describe a solution for a specific problem.

reply
Yes. Is it data? Yes.

Is the distinction between "code" and "data" just someone's opinion? Yes. There is no such distinction in reality.

reply
This is a good model. If you take an old ROM dump from a video game, it's just a pile of bits. You don't know what bits represent code, what represent an image, what represent text, etc. You have to analyze them contextually to actually figure out what is code and what is "data" in context, because without context they are truly one and the same.
reply
That's why encountering something like LISP for the first time (by writing a LISP interpreter, for example) creates a big bang event in form of an imminent intellectual catharsis. People who encountered it just once, will never be able to see the world through the old "meaty" lenses afterwards.
reply
deleted
reply
Is matter code? There is some sort of computation happening in space over time.
reply
By Fermat's principle, a ray of light has to know where it will ultimately end up before it can choose the direction to begin moving in.

So either something is computing it or some exploration is happening at quantum level and we just see the final result.

reply
Fermat's principle is an outcome of constructive interference of waves. It works both for classical and quantummechanical descriptions. E.g. check https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/U...
reply
> a ray of light has to know where it will ultimately end up before it can choose the direction to begin moving in

A ray of light doesn't know or choose because it has no agency, just like an apple doesn't know or decide to fall because of gravity. It's an anthropomorphization.

reply
True, so the interference is the "computation"(heavy emphasis on quotes) which gives rise to the principle.
reply
> a ray of light has to know where it will ultimately end up before it can choose the direction to begin moving in

I'm no physicists, so I guess I'll ask it: Why?

Also related, why do some ray of light then "see" a black hole yet decide to head into them anyways, if they saw it before they went in that direction? Seems like a dumb move :)

reply
Its future isn't over there because it moves in that direction, instead it moves in that direction because its future lies over there.

Relatedly:

> [General Relativity] basically says that the reason you are sticking to the floor right now is that the shortest distance between today and tomorrow is through the center of the Earth.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/250800/gr-and-my...

reply