calf

5 ms·

1.
by calf 5d ago
I'm not going articulate the answer but I will say whatever beef you have with the other commenter (or me), just copy this thread into ChatGPT and it will tell you why you are more in the wrong.
2.
by calf 5d ago
That commenter was already obnoxious under this thread, and today they are relitigating Searle-Turing via Hofstadter GEB slop, so they are also an ignoramus.
3.
by calf 6d ago
So the credibility of your friends weighs more than the credibility of tenured professors at world-class academic institutions, got it.
4.
by calf 6d ago
Clearly your degrees did not make you immune from fallacies and simplistic reductions. "Synthesis" is obviously of different kinds. A duck has a different level of intelligence than a human. We do not say both are "just doing
5.
by calf 6d ago
Or protein folding as per Scott Aaronson.
6.
by calf 6d ago
It's like AlphaGo but playing against all living mathematicians. (Overhang being low hanging fruit is what allows this comparison, of course the general moot point is the skepticism that LLMs are also innovative etc.)
7.
by calf 6d ago
So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy. To think this discussion is about E
8.
by calf 6d ago
Also how quickly the discourse forgets, literally that was a month ago.
9.
by calf 7d ago
And humanities have a word for this, exploitation, or appropriation, maybe it's time scientists and engineers revisited basic ethical notions. Skimming a dozen threads and nobody seems to have this vocabulary or willing to say it.
10.
by calf 7d ago
If only prompts could also be watermarked.
11.
by calf 8d ago
Buckmaster is letting the reader connect the dots, it is all the more disrespectful to be disingenuous and say they're nothing there concerning to see or worth further ethical scrutiny given the coincidences.
12.
by calf 8d ago
You realize that hill is a mathematical argument, not a physical hill.
13.
by calf 8d ago
Your perspective is not helpful until you read and reflect on Tristan's letter stating serious grievances. Your remarks here have minimized his complaints and that is a sign of bias. Do not then pre-accuse HN commenters of being convin
14.
by calf 8d ago
The difference is no one writes punchcards so the comparison is inapt. It is more like supposing AI eats everything humans attempt to do. They will take your work as you are working on it, any interaction at all. It is meta-plagiarism, on a
15.
by calf 8d ago
It has no legs as an "explanation" because the content of the email (as described) already acknowledges as much. It's the whole reason he wrote contact email. His chief complaint now includes how the hell did Altman's
16.
by calf 8d ago
> I'm not even sure what to say to this, but I think this should be widely known if it is indeed what happened. Call this behavior what it is, technofascism. Another comment compared it to the Godfather. To think this is the 21st ce
17.
by calf 8d ago
One should not evaluate explanations based on level of "fine"/innocuousness, in ethics that is called motivated reasoning or something. The whole point of Tristan's first email was to address the issue of the rumors so i
18.
by calf 9d ago
Then that's naive of him to write the email, he fell for their trap essentially.
19.
by calf 9d ago
That's a fake explanation, it skips explaining/justifying how OpenAi "heard about" the result
20.
by calf 11d ago
I literally thought of this comparison last week. The problem I noticed was how my parents' generation lacked the cognitive "defenses" to separate AI social media content on YouTube, WhatsApp and the like from high quality in
21.
by calf 14d ago
Then where does self-reference appear in other animals? Famously most higher animals such as mammals still fail the mirror test. I agree with the point that self-reference comes "for free" due to computationalist reasons, namely Q
22.
by calf 19d ago
I'm stupid, consider a quadrilateral with points b a c d Then the area needs to be the trapezoids projected to x axis is ab+bc-ad-dc. What is the correct way to keep track of the signs? I.e. what is the definition of
23.
by calf 20d ago
The statement, written by someone else, matches what I happen to generally believe about the Economist. Do not presume to understand other people's concerns based on one or two sentences. I don't know how to explain that in an onl
24.
by calf 20d ago
I care about the fennel I grew in my backyard. Then one day I made fennel salad.
25.
by calf 20d ago
I read some long piece by him last year, just as terrible. It's a pattern. These are what we call court philosophers, the court is in Google HQ.
26.
by calf 20d ago
I hate ad hominems leveled (especially against me), but the information about the Economist and this author is relevant. It suggests bad faith (to readers who have noticed a pattern by those sources). Which is not necessarily an ad hominem.
27.
by calf 22d ago
So I had just bought from Amazon in July an M4 mini, brand new, for a lucky post-hike price of 832 CA$ (682 USD); it was the very last unit at that price and I snatched it the morning it listed on the Apple/Amazon.ca official vendor. S
28.
by calf 23d ago
That's just punting the meta which is why are companies converging on similar processes? Plausible explanation being that Moore's law exponential is going away.
29.
by calf 23d ago
If Moore's law is truly ending as is generally believed, then it seems logically inevitable that the entire industry will flatten out and equalize. Or, I am oversimplifying something.
30.
by calf 25d ago
Why can't Canada be more like Japan in relation to its hostile neighboring countries? Hypothetically. Naive comparison, but prompted by your fatalistic analysis of codependent nations.

More ›