aithrowaway1987

7 ms·

1.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
But that is not the standard for current GNU projects in large part because of all the easily avoidable friction. "If it was good enough for Richard Stallman in 1987, it's good enough for Microsoft in 2024" is just a dumb arg
2.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
At least for me, Monty Hall makes more intuitive sense to me when there are 10 doors than when there are 3, even though the benefit of the optimal strategy is quite small: there's a 1/10 chance you picked the car and shouldn'
3.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
Look at who the tools are marketed towards. Writing software involves a lot of tedium, eye strain, and frustration, even for experts who have put in a lot of hours practicing, so LLMs are marketed to help developers make their jobs easier.
4.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
> Might there be certain laws of physics that are also “necessary” in the same way? In his paper, Molinini argues that the principle of conservation may be one such law. In physics, some properties of a system, such as energy or momentum
5.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
Isn't "plasticity is not necessary for intelligence" just defining intelligence downwards? It seems like you want to restrict "intelligence" to static knowledge and (apparent) short-term cleverness, but being able t
6.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
Because they can learn a bunch of symbolic formal arithmetic without learning anything about quantity. They can learn 5 x 3 = 15 without learning ***** **** ******* ***** = ***** = ******* ***** ****** * And
7.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
> Recent examples I've seen fall well within the range of innumeracy that people routinely display. Here's GPT-4 Turbo in April botching a test almost all preschoolers could solve easily: https://substackcdn.com&#x2F
8.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
There was a very good paper in Nature showing this definitively: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41437933 Modern ANN architectures are not actually capable of long-term learning in the same way animals are, even stod
9.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
In 2022 Ilya Sutskever claimed there wasn't a distinction: > It may look—on the surface—that we are just learning statistical correlations in text. But it turns out that to ‘just learn’ the statistical correlations in text, to compr
10.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
I learn best via writing things out by hand in my own words, and almost never read the notes afterwards. I am also profoundly disorganized :) Before I got a reMarkable I had accumulated (and thrown out) dozens of bulky paper notebooks. Now
11.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
My issue with this line of argument is that people always want to compare "do it with Copilot" to "do it completely by scratch" when they should be comparing it to "do it by ignorantly copy-pasting from one of the m
12.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
> But isn't the ability to learn also a major component of IQ? Not sure what you mean by this - it's certainly not something a single-day IQ test could possibly measure! The primary reason IQ is a discredited measure of intelli
13.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
If you care about music: at least 100 years, almost certainly much longer. I don't think any of us in this comment section will live to see an AI that truly understands human music. If you care about money and don't mind making th
14.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
> why Drew is so sympathetic to the cause I think this is a mischaracterization. If you read the original post[1] it's clear he's not at all sympathetic to the cause, though given recent news he is more sympathetic to the pe
15.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
AFAICT it has not been described "in detail," the only writeup I know of is this vague, flowery blog post: https://waymo.com/blog/2024/05/fleet-response/ > it's not in a way that would
16.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
Waymo's numbers aren't dishonest and their accomplishment is real, but this data should be taken in its proper context. 1) The comparison lumps in a lot of humans which cynically and selfishly break the law. Currently Waymos attem
17.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
The thing I wish we better understood about Waymo is how much the remote human operators are actually intervening on a daily basis - maybe I don’t know where to look, but I’ve never gotten a clear answer here. AFAICT the success of Waymo me
18.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
There's a huge difference between "the AI receives synthetic data as if from an omniscient being and proceeds as if it were true" and "the animal brain creates synthetic data and assesses its plausibility and downstream
19.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
I am struggling to understand a single implication of this! How does this generalize to anything other than other than playing retro games in the most expensive way possible? The very intention of this project is overfitting to data in a
20.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
> witnessing it's neurons being used as a computing resource What exactly is doing the witnessing here, if the neurons are being used for computation? A lot of these comments seem to tacitly assume there is a little person inside ou
21.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
While human brains are probably just scaled-up chimpanzee brains, individual primate neurons are significantly more sophisticated than other mammalian taxa, particularly with epigenetic changes: https://www.nature.com/articl
22.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
I also noticed that they played AI DOOM very slowly: in an actual game you are running around like a madman, but in the video clips the player is moving in a very careful, halting manner. In particular the player only moves in straight line
23.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
It seems misleading to lump AlphaGeometry in with this: that system works by having an LLM generate hundreds of Lean programs and trying to find the one that works. Frankly the project is pointless and borderline dishonest: it is a hideousl
24.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
Have you ever played a video game? This is unbelievably depressing. This is a future where games like Slay the Spire, with a unique art style and innovative gameplay simply are not being made. Not to mention this childish nonsense about &qu
25.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
It's not "vibes" but it is a moral perspective, not an opinion informed by data. In particular the total absence of any scientific definition of intelligence makes any "data" meaningless, which is why my comment was
26.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
I think the 1600 number is a coarse metric for this sort of thing. Keep in mind that these instructions are limited in the number of formal parameters they can take: e.g. 16 nominally distinct instructions can be more readily understood&#x2
27.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
It is quite striking that no two photos actually look like the same person - crudely similar, but the face shape is all over the place. I would think this is an especially long “last mile” for training and fine-tuning: this might need a mor
28.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
Disclaimers aren't magic words that dispel all liability. Joe Rogan isn't allowed to lie about people and claim "hey, I'm a comedian, I wasn't being serious." There is a high bar for satire or rhetorical exagge
29.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
The shadiness about Facebook's proprietary dataset of 300 million photos is concerning and should draw more attention. At the very least it is scientifically unacceptable - we should not high-five Big Tech researchers for intentionally
30.
by aithrowaway1987 2y ago
I am whiny about being anti-AI, but no doubt they are well-suited for English<->programming translation tasks, which along with a well-tuned bag of tricks is a useful tool. But two issues the tech community had not spent nearly enough

More ›