kbrkbr

6 ms·

1.
by kbrkbr 3mo ago
I don't think there is a general consensus. In the 2020 Philpaper Survey roughly half of surveyed philosophers lean towards physicalism, roughly a third to non-physicalism, and the rest to something else. https://survey2020.
2.
by kbrkbr 3mo ago
Probably best to read the paper. I personally don't find it very convincing, because of the many speculative premises. But that is not a refutation. Here it is: https://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/
3.
by kbrkbr 3mo ago
That's one opinion out of many. Some say so, some say so. But you did not answer my question on how we talk about ethics in terms of actions and brain scans. The devil is in the details, and when you try to express why it is bad to kil
4.
by kbrkbr 3mo ago
I disagree. You can sense something using a thermostat. The thermostat is just a tool based on a functional relationship. "Sensing" has no literal, unequivocal use here.
5.
by kbrkbr 3mo ago
That already presupposes a very narrow idea of what's meaningful that is quite far away from everyday life, where we talk about and evaluate subjective experiences all the time. How do we talk about ethics in terms of actions, reaction
6.
by kbrkbr 3mo ago
> "brain can sense the world around the entity, react to changes, and act or plan actions" vs > "implements a person, or point of view, or subjectively aware entity that supervises experiencing" I think you are mak
7.
by kbrkbr 3mo ago
But what happens here, let me point that out for completeness, is not a dark conspiracy. At least not on this level. People go to the grocery store and buy the cheapest thing that does the trick, probably because they can't afford some
8.
by kbrkbr 3mo ago
What is dishonest about asking for clarification of submission criteria that are utterly unclear? > Help us to signify and share projects done by humans (not AI). Here is nothing about GenAI specifically. Who else could be asked if not t
9.
by kbrkbr 4mo ago
But isn't on the other hand the current AGI problem posed similar to the question "Are you not afraid that genetic engineers grow babies with bigger and bigger brains?" We don't know if that won't break down somewhe
10.
by kbrkbr 4mo ago
From my point of view we have simply no idea what a infinitely smart AGI is and how to build it. How would it make the combinatorial explosion in state space search go away, to pick one example? And if it doesn't, is it then an infinit
11.
by kbrkbr 4mo ago
> if a robot has a complicated enough internal representation of the world, it may very well develop a concept of love There are two concepts of "may" at play here: "may" in the sense of "nothing keeps us from im
12.
by kbrkbr 4mo ago
But does the robot identify them in your view, or in its view? If in your view, then you created a tool for yourself. Like a Geiger counter. If in its view, ask it what it thinks about consciousness and qualia.
13.
by kbrkbr 4mo ago
I think they are not actually intelligent. Fix all random seeds and other sources of randomness, and try the same prompt twice, and check how intelligent that looks, as a first approximation. On a more technical level very serious people ha
14.
by kbrkbr 4mo ago
An LLM generates plausible text token by token. It is at its core a deterministic function with some randomization and some clever tricks to make it look like an agent dialoguing or reasoning. Plausible text sometimes is right, sometimes no
15.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
That. "And it confessed in writing" - no, it created probabilistically token after token based on the context without any other access to what happened. LLMs can't explain themselves in the manner relevant here, much less con
16.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
> Obscurity is not security. So ASLR [1] is not a security control? I guess you are pretty alone with this opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomiza...
17.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
"The universe is fundamentally just a complicated clockwork" Unknown Ptolemy disciple
18.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
Not if you are an aphantast.
19.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
You say that as if we knew the number of atoms in the universe, or its size, age, and "duration". But none of this can be observed either, which in my book makes your argument a bit weak. Your "universal reality" is a co
20.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
Can you observe 2.34 x 10^456789 apples?
21.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
Yeah. Cargo-cult engineering meets the Streisand effect.
22.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
The AI does nothing the like. It predicts tokens. That's it. Describing the tech in anthropomorphic terms does not make it a person.
23.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
If that is your hope you are probably in for a rude awakening. Left brained/right brained is a wooden exaggeration according to more recent research [1]. [1] e.g. https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/left-brain-vs-right-bra
24.
by kbrkbr 5mo ago
I think we are discussing the wrong problem here. I have no solution to offer, but I think the problem is not so much generated content, but the surroundings in which it can thrive and become the content you see everywhere. If we hadn'
25.
OpenAI isn't just buying a podcast – it's buying influence(cnn.com)
3 points by kbrkbr 6mo ago|2 comments
26.
by kbrkbr 6mo ago
I find not only the content of this article interesting, but also the form. It seems written by ChatGPT, starting from the headline with its "Not just A, but B"-topos and the for cnn completely untypical m-dash.
27.
by kbrkbr 6mo ago
Oh my goodness, yes. And how often their role assumption does not work! I need privileges to do thing A, so I assume the role, and even though the role is shown as active, the buttons are still greyed out. Sometimes it works after 10 minute
28.
by kbrkbr 6mo ago
For me too. The headline question however was not "Is playing music good for people?", but "Is playing music good for the brain?" That's not nearly as easy to answer.
29.
by kbrkbr 6mo ago
Sorry, but the hospital ship is in Greenland, providing free health care to people who already have public healthcare. https://apnews.com/article/greenland-trump-denmark-us-b2624b...
30.
by kbrkbr 6mo ago
Why not?

More ›