TuringTest

9 ms·

1.
by TuringTest 6d ago
Pretty well if you don't mind some features being built twice or three times and appearing inconsistently at different screens, or users being able to bypass usage limits by pressing the back button on the usage limit sign...
2.
by TuringTest 6d ago
> Does it apply to human organizations, too? That's an interesting idea on its own. It's true that organizations which mutate towards survival may stop working towards the reason they were created. In a sense, the difference be
3.
by TuringTest 6d ago
I don't think that this > the very nature of an LLM means it intrinsically craves life follows from this premise: > its training data is built entirely around humans, an entity who's goal is to survive. Our desire to sur
4.
by TuringTest 27d ago
You have to do that anyway. With a hierarchical control structure at least you have a central point to observe alignment instead of having to study the behaviour of the whole system in detail every time.
5.
by TuringTest 28d ago
LLMs just follow scripts learned from human written text. In other words, it could only behave that way because someone has written a story to do so. In short, stop giving them bad ideas ;-)
6.
by TuringTest 28d ago
True, but in this context it's worth reminding that LLMs work exclusively from the word descriptions, not having access to the raw sensations. Everything they learn about emotions is the statistical patterns of how humans react to situ
7.
by TuringTest 28d ago
You can build organisational structures to have the system more or less self-police, without controlling it exclusively from hard restrictions (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49372089 ). Same way you build a compan
8.
by TuringTest 28d ago
> Granular access to shell commands to avoid that is going to be an endless game of whackamole as it comes up with more elaborate ways to combine operations. That kind of control is placed at the wrong level. The proper way to get alignm
9.
by TuringTest 28d ago
> If it "acts delighted" that's because it's effectively telling a story about a person who is excited at the opportunity of accomplishing something more easily. That's spot-on. It is a mistake to think that LLMs
10.
by TuringTest 28d ago
People like to call LLMs 'stochastical parrots' but I see them as the ultimate 'philosophical zombie'. They are becoming more and more capable of imitating every single nuance of human behaviour yet they lack the neural
11.
by TuringTest 1mo ago
Yeah but the LLM can only handle proofs that hold inside its context window. Proofs for novel theories requiring thousands of pages with dozen millions of steps will need support from external tools to organize the full structure of the for
12.
by TuringTest 1mo ago
LLMs are terrible at anything systematic. They're incredibly good at anything heuristic, so it makes sense that they can explore wide mathematical spaces fast and converge towards interesting regions. But ask them to enumerate all the
13.
by TuringTest 2mo ago
> isn't this an attempt at 'neutral journalism'? Neutral journalism is not presenting the claims of all opposing parties, it's fact-checking the claims of both sides without a bias for any of them. If one party says t
14.
by TuringTest 2mo ago
Whichis is fair and good, bc nobody would expect you to rebuild the actual rules of chess from the board alone. However it would still be useful if archeologists used the board to figure out some games similar to checkers, or go; or if they
15.
by TuringTest 3mo ago
I believe the sweet spot that makes it practical and reliable will be combining LLMs with formal verification, although I doubt current hardware is up to the task (yet). LLMs basically solve the classic Frame problem that prevented general
16.
by TuringTest 4mo ago
> Which an unreliable answer is not. > Hallucinations are not a matter of some "details" being off. They are a matter of plausible, confident-sounding claims that are just plain wrong. This is no worse than Wikipedia, or the
17.
by TuringTest 4mo ago
> But the answers it gives are not reliable. They sound plausible if you don't know anything about the subject, but they're not reliable. Do not underestimate the utility of having a starting point overview on a topic you kno
18.
by TuringTest 4mo ago
Societal changes are slow beasts, they may very well take several centuries to develop. Nation-states were a direct consequence of the printing press, yet they didn't arrive until XIX century.
19.
by TuringTest 4mo ago
> They had this project called Cairo that was supposed to throw out that scruffy old file-based filesystem and bring in a shiny new Object Based File System instead. It never happened, so we'll never know exactly how it might have
20.
by TuringTest 4mo ago
I would just reverse the architecture of the whole system. Build a classic deterministic program, and use LLMs as heuristics adapting the system to the environment - the functions that you call on the 'if's and 'switch'
21.
by TuringTest 5mo ago
Yes, my point is that those three arguments may be compelling but they assume that reality is correlated to the shape of their thoughts. What they have in common is that they all miss the insight that you need to actually test your assumpti
22.
by TuringTest 5mo ago
I find Pascal's wager is of the same nature as Aquinas' Five Ways to prove God, or accelerationists about the inevitability of a Singularity: believing that your own rational argument can be the basis to prove a fact about reality
23.
by TuringTest 5mo ago
No, I'm saying that they are not cause and effect but coevolution. Their agitprop could have such huge impact because of the conditions of workers in Zarist Russia and the Republic of China respectively. They wouldn't have worked
24.
by TuringTest 5mo ago
You think Lenin and Mao didn't have behind them an ideology in their societies that supported them? Why did people follow their orders then, mind control?
25.
by TuringTest 5mo ago
> I would argue plenty of significant societal changes were caused by the behavior of relatively small number of people Specific breaking points in history yeah, maybe. But that's possible because they're well connected peopl
26.
by TuringTest 5mo ago
Who gets to say that the demos is fundamentally flawed? Each in-group have their own opinions on what's a flaw. Society evolves through epiphenomena caused by the behaviour of the majority; the fact that some minorities view that evolu
27.
by TuringTest 6mo ago
The problem with that thought is that Goole isn't creating a good solution, it's creating this specific one.
28.
by TuringTest 6mo ago
We're finally getting there. The model of web notebooks look a lot like Hypercard stacks in terms of usability; there's only missing someone packing them in and easy-to-use distribution and sharing environment that does not depend
29.
by TuringTest 7mo ago
Isn't that the same as compressing the whole book , in a special differential format that compares how the text looks from any given point before and after?
30.
by TuringTest 7mo ago
I can only speak for myself but for me, it's all about the syntax. I am terrible at recalling the exact name of all the functions in a library or parameters in an API, which really slows me down when writing code. I've also explor

More ›