7 ms·

> Much more knowledgeable than you or I are Speak for yourself. I work for an LLM startup that was successfully bootstrapped and is now highly profitable with

> Much more knowledgeable than you or I are Speak for yourself. I work for an LLM startup that was successfully bootstrapped and is now highly profitable with 8-digit revenue and zero outside investment. Unlike OpenAI and Anthropic, we do not rely on deceiving investors to dump a trillion dollars into a tar fire with the false promise of delivering the machine god that will unemploy all of humanity (at best). Taking people who have an unbelievably large financial stake in lying at face value, and moreover, stating that those are the only people who can be trusted, is so unbelievably naive it's almost cute. Almost. > We made a framework from which it can semi-organically emerge. ...by programming. Again, this is an appeal to emergent behaviour, which, repeating myself, was already well-demonstrated by Conway's Game of Life in 1970, and yet nobody lost their minds because the emergent behaviour didn't happen to refer to itself as "I" when trained to.

human_874539160 6d ago
> Speak for yourself. I work for an LLM startup And yet you still fail to demonstrate good understanding of the topic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > stating that those are the only people who can be trusted You are right, they are most definitely not the only people who can be trusted to have current and accurate information. But due to the unique constraints of these fast-moving events, they are certainly among those whose opinions need to be considered carefully. You would have been be a fool to not take into account the opinions of the physicists working on the Manhattan Project, for example. > ...by programming. Again, this is an appeal to emergent behaviour Saying (derisively) that it is an "appeal to emergent behaviour", when the ENTIRE POINT OF CONTENTION is said emergent behaviour is like saying that you should not discuss God at a theological forum or that you should ignore the theory of relativity when discussing gravity.
- applfanboysbgon 6d ago
  > And yet you still fail to demonstrate good understanding of the topic Or you simply misinterpreted my words, seemingly intentionally so because pedantry is a comfortable fall-back for not having a logical argument. > Saying (derisively) that it is an "appeal to emergent behaviour", when the ENTIRE POINT OF CONTENTION is said emergent behaviour is like saying that you should not discuss God at a theological forum or that you should ignore the theory of relativity when discussing gravity. The derisiveness comes from the fact that you appear to believe merely demonstrating emergent behaviour is enough, despite the fact that emergent behaviour is common and has been common in programs for half a century without anybody considering them conscious. Life itself is emergent behaviour, but that does not mean all emergent behaviour is life. Life emerged from incredibly complex physical and material interactions over billions of years of incremental self-programming. The idea that we have found some magic ingredient to shortcut the process, that we can recreate that with some very simple statistical model that is not capable of self-programming, is so absurd it becomes about as difficult to argue against as Russell's Teapot. We developed a model for predicting words and it does. Although it does quite an impressive job of that, it has demonstrated zero capability to do anything beyond what you would reasonably expect it to, same as all other software with emergent capabilities and rather unlike life which developed truly novel emergent behaviour relative to its base ingredients.
  - human_874539160 6d ago
    > Life itself is emergent behaviour, but that does not mean all emergent behaviour is life. Life emerged from incredibly complex physical and material interactions over billions of years of incremental self-programming. Great, you are now mythologizing chemistry and biology. <facepalm> Those processes you mention are so fucking incredibly complex that current evidence points at life having evolved two times independently on Earth, likely been present on Mars, and we have hope of finding active life on Titan perhaps within a decade. Clearly fucking magic. Also, calling evolution self-programming is calling random mutations over thousands of generations intentional. Evolution is very much NOT intentional, in any possible interpretation, but you clearly are ignorant of this topic as much as in your self-professed field. > The idea that we have found some magic ingredient to shortcut the process, that we can recreate that If you weren't so deep in your own intellectual hole, you could clearly see the very big difference between emergence of biological consciousness and AI: one required billions of years of sheer dumb fucking luck in a dumb, aimless universe; the other required intentionality and a great amount of pre-existing intelligence. Your argument is about the same as of those people arguing that "Man will never achieve powered flight and thus usurp the God-given majesty of His birds." Of course, we did figure out how to match and outperform millions of years of evolution via – in retrospect – quite simple physical principles, by applying intentionality and intelligence where evolution only had dumb luck. > The idea that we have found some magic ingredient to shortcut the process [...] is so absurd Is in fact what ALL of human technology is about. ... ... > statistical model that is not capable of self-programming My brother in bicycles, if you knew anything about the field, you knew that the very goal of it is achieving autonomous self-improvement by these "statistical models", and that in fact they are partially doing it already. Also, unlike the dumb evolutionary processes you are mythologizing, this time the improvements over generations are very much intentional. That is how you shortcut millions of years of dumb biology. > We developed a model for predicting words and it does. Although it does quite an impressive job of that, it has demonstrated zero capability to do anything beyond what you would reasonably expect it to This is never not going to not be funny – funny-sad. My delusional fellow human, I have good and bad news for you. The bad news is that frontier artificial intelligence has already exceeded your intellectual capacity in pretty much all the ways that count, and it is quite obvious. The good news is that you don't have to try so hard anymore to sound smart.
- joshheitzman 6d ago
  Simple cellular automata demonstrate emergent behavior. Emergent behavior is nothing new in computer science and is not remotely unique to LLMs.

human_874539160 6d ago

> Speak for yourself. I work for an LLM startup And yet you still fail to demonstrate good understanding of the topic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > stating that those are the only people who can be trusted You are right, they are most definitely not the only people who can be trusted to have current and accurate information. But due to the unique constraints of these fast-moving events, they are certainly among those whose opinions need to be considered carefully. You would have been be a fool to not take into account the opinions of the physicists working on the Manhattan Project, for example. > ...by programming. Again, this is an appeal to emergent behaviour Saying (derisively) that it is an "appeal to emergent behaviour", when the ENTIRE POINT OF CONTENTION is said emergent behaviour is like saying that you should not discuss God at a theological forum or that you should ignore the theory of relativity when discussing gravity.

applfanboysbgon 6d ago
> And yet you still fail to demonstrate good understanding of the topic Or you simply misinterpreted my words, seemingly intentionally so because pedantry is a comfortable fall-back for not having a logical argument. > Saying (derisively) that it is an "appeal to emergent behaviour", when the ENTIRE POINT OF CONTENTION is said emergent behaviour is like saying that you should not discuss God at a theological forum or that you should ignore the theory of relativity when discussing gravity. The derisiveness comes from the fact that you appear to believe merely demonstrating emergent behaviour is enough, despite the fact that emergent behaviour is common and has been common in programs for half a century without anybody considering them conscious. Life itself is emergent behaviour, but that does not mean all emergent behaviour is life. Life emerged from incredibly complex physical and material interactions over billions of years of incremental self-programming. The idea that we have found some magic ingredient to shortcut the process, that we can recreate that with some very simple statistical model that is not capable of self-programming, is so absurd it becomes about as difficult to argue against as Russell's Teapot. We developed a model for predicting words and it does. Although it does quite an impressive job of that, it has demonstrated zero capability to do anything beyond what you would reasonably expect it to, same as all other software with emergent capabilities and rather unlike life which developed truly novel emergent behaviour relative to its base ingredients.
- human_874539160 6d ago
  > Life itself is emergent behaviour, but that does not mean all emergent behaviour is life. Life emerged from incredibly complex physical and material interactions over billions of years of incremental self-programming. Great, you are now mythologizing chemistry and biology. <facepalm> Those processes you mention are so fucking incredibly complex that current evidence points at life having evolved two times independently on Earth, likely been present on Mars, and we have hope of finding active life on Titan perhaps within a decade. Clearly fucking magic. Also, calling evolution self-programming is calling random mutations over thousands of generations intentional. Evolution is very much NOT intentional, in any possible interpretation, but you clearly are ignorant of this topic as much as in your self-professed field. > The idea that we have found some magic ingredient to shortcut the process, that we can recreate that If you weren't so deep in your own intellectual hole, you could clearly see the very big difference between emergence of biological consciousness and AI: one required billions of years of sheer dumb fucking luck in a dumb, aimless universe; the other required intentionality and a great amount of pre-existing intelligence. Your argument is about the same as of those people arguing that "Man will never achieve powered flight and thus usurp the God-given majesty of His birds." Of course, we did figure out how to match and outperform millions of years of evolution via – in retrospect – quite simple physical principles, by applying intentionality and intelligence where evolution only had dumb luck. > The idea that we have found some magic ingredient to shortcut the process [...] is so absurd Is in fact what ALL of human technology is about. ... ... > statistical model that is not capable of self-programming My brother in bicycles, if you knew anything about the field, you knew that the very goal of it is achieving autonomous self-improvement by these "statistical models", and that in fact they are partially doing it already. Also, unlike the dumb evolutionary processes you are mythologizing, this time the improvements over generations are very much intentional. That is how you shortcut millions of years of dumb biology. > We developed a model for predicting words and it does. Although it does quite an impressive job of that, it has demonstrated zero capability to do anything beyond what you would reasonably expect it to This is never not going to not be funny – funny-sad. My delusional fellow human, I have good and bad news for you. The bad news is that frontier artificial intelligence has already exceeded your intellectual capacity in pretty much all the ways that count, and it is quite obvious. The good news is that you don't have to try so hard anymore to sound smart.
joshheitzman 6d ago
Simple cellular automata demonstrate emergent behavior. Emergent behavior is nothing new in computer science and is not remotely unique to LLMs.