breuleux

5 ms·

1.
by breuleux 5d ago
And they knew they were. The brain's computations are focused on what the brain sees, it's not magic. If someone in the Matrix is a writer, we know what their brain's computing: a book. So if the machines need your brain to c
2.
by breuleux 5d ago
The “using humans for compute” angle makes no sense either, if you’re living in the Matrix, your brain is obviously occupied processing the Matrix. The way to do it would be to trap humans in virtual classrooms and force them to solve math
3.
by breuleux 11d ago
Sure. That's good, I fully agree with you on that. But is this the solution, or just treating the symptom rather than the root cause? Technology by itself has never been the problem, the problem is the scaling up of it. Fossil fuels
4.
by breuleux 11d ago
Would it work as well, though? The basic idea of "degrowth", to me, is to slow down the car until the braking distance is smaller than the viewing distance, so we're safe no matter what. Whereas technology is more like swervi
5.
by breuleux 11d ago
> Technologists succeeded at doing that. Have they? How have they done that? I just want to know what you mean here.
6.
by breuleux 12d ago
Next-token prediction is a general paradigm, though. In principle, there isn't really anything a sufficiently advanced token predictor couldn't do.
7.
by breuleux 13d ago
I think that if today's capabilities were explained to someone 10-20 years ago they would think this is definitely AGI, but they would also have expected much more disruptive changes to society as a result than what is happening. I fig
8.
by breuleux 13d ago
> globalization should increase linguistic complexity via exposure to other cultures. I certainly didn't use the term chaebol until the rise of Korean pop culture. Globalization moves every culture towards each other, with a hig
9.
by breuleux 16d ago
> This is again, feelings presented as evidence. It's not presented as evidence. I was going for the "basis" part of your ask for evidence/basis, which is definitionally looser: elaborating on my thoughts and the ki
10.
by breuleux 17d ago
> It would be highly irrational to deny or ignore reality, including the influence of emotions, irrational humans, chaotic systems, etc. Well, yes, but being a rationalist does not make one rational . It just makes you part of a group
11.
by breuleux 17d ago
I feel that the main issue with the rationalist crowd is that they live too much in the space of rationality, intelligence and abstractions, but not enough in reality. This leads to an outlook where everything must, almost axiomatically, be
12.
by breuleux 19d ago
> The first ~1.4C of warming coincided with the greatest surge in human development, poverty reduction, and technological progress in history. For most of it, we didn't even realize the climate was warming... To me, this suggests th
13.
by breuleux 20d ago
I think a better angle is that LLMs are "just" token predictors in the same way that we are "just" made out of atoms. A lot of people do not believe consciousness can be material; they don't believe that you could b
14.
by breuleux 1mo ago
> there is nothing physically cyclic going on If you plot the three primary colors with all possible combinations of only two of them, you can connect them all neatly using a circle, and distance on that circle does tell us something abo
15.
by breuleux 1mo ago
Yeah, it would need to be designed and tested carefully. Rather than formatting around things, I would probably be fine with something simple like overlaying the previous layout in a small disk area under the cursor. So if a button shifts d
16.
by breuleux 1mo ago
I don't think it does? Popups are one thing, but the very possibility of dynamic content entails that stuff will shift on the page. Sometimes it's just the nature of the thing, like a chatroom or a notification stream -- it'l
17.
by breuleux 1mo ago
I wish we had a UI paradigm where whatever is underneath your cursor is not allowed to change. If you hover a button, that button must remain right there for you to click, if you hover some text, it must remain there for you to select. Brow
18.
by breuleux 1mo ago
There is such a thing as borrowing against the future. If we fail to keep climate change in check and millions of people die as a consequence, that may just wipe out all the gains you mention. And let's not mix everything up. Every inn
19.
by breuleux 1mo ago
I'm describing a speed limit applied to production , not experimentation. We can progress science, knowledge and technology all we want without necessarily committing every resource we can find to producing ten times more stuff than w
20.
by breuleux 1mo ago
I feel that oftentimes our biggest problems come with the irresponsible scaling up of certain solutions, at which point it is usually too late to roll back because we have come to depend on them. There has to be some time between the moment
21.
by breuleux 1mo ago
If you’re only running models for frontier capabilities, yeah. For tasks where current models are smart enough, running them 100x faster is the most impactful improvement you can make. Consider all the things you could use a model for, but
22.
by breuleux 1mo ago
If the ASIC runs a model 100x better (faster, cheaper, less energy, etc.), it will remain competitive on any task for which frontier models don't improve as quickly. Any task for which current models are "good enough" arguabl
23.
by breuleux 1mo ago
> Good governance takes intelligence. True, but that doesn't mean intelligence is the bottleneck of good governance. Good governance also requires simple, plain brute force. You have to herd millions of cats, all of which have the
24.
by breuleux 2mo ago
That is true, but that suggests that the value of software is reverting to the value of a jig. Software that gets deployed to millions of people gets a large valuation because it provides small convenience times a million. In the era of bes
25.
by breuleux 2mo ago
There is no "evidence" that anything has consciousness, nor could there be. To clarify, by that I don't mean nothing is conscious, I mean that it's never been an evidence-based proposition. We are conscious because we de
26.
by breuleux 2mo ago
Why, exactly, is this distinction relevant? The brain must store episodic memory somewhere too. From a cursory read, it seems to me that our experiences are processed through the hippocampus and amygdala into a high-level annotated encoding
27.
by breuleux 2mo ago
> We have absolutely no idea what consciousness is We do, in the sense that it is a definite feeling. What we don't have is a formal, objective, checkable definition of it. I suspect that no such definition exists: if we took the
28.
by breuleux 2mo ago
Is it? Genuine question. Say you didn't do these things at all -- what would that change to your life? Are you gaining productivity in high-impact things, or stuff that might scratch an itch but you don't really need all things
29.
by breuleux 2mo ago
The phrase was in an episode of The Office prior to that. I think it's fairly old.
30.
by breuleux 2mo ago
Yeah... savage capitalism will ruin this too :'(

More ›