throw310822

6 ms·

1.
by throw310822 4d ago
> You stated that the submission did not represent the facts because the facts are about banning «research on ASI», No. I stated that the submission is idiotic because the point is that the law wants to severely restrict AI research at l
2.
by throw310822 4d ago
We might agree or disagree with the statement that AGI and ASI are dangerous (economically, societally, existentially) and research needs to be paused- which means making their development (temporarily) illegal. If you accept that it is the
3.
by throw310822 4d ago
This person has missed reading classes, is dishonest or just stupid. The law proposal bans research on ASI, and sets penalties for those who transgress the ban. Seems quite obvious to me. The law that bans clandestine efforts to build nucle
4.
by throw310822 5d ago
Do you also bet that 9/11 happened for no reason at all?
5.
by throw310822 5d ago
80% of comments on AI-related stuff are lazy snipes now. Feels more and more like a forum of know-it-all teenagers.
6.
by throw310822 9d ago
> I see that Gates started a conversation with the execs he believes are responsible for fixing this mess. I think the point here might be that what created this mess in the first place is the structure of the organisation, not the execs
7.
by throw310822 11d ago
> you proved you have it with your declaration of my statement as "handwavy". That assessment requires comprehension Look, I totally agree with you here. It does require comprehension (by any definition, not necessarily yours),
8.
by throw310822 12d ago
I think it's legitimate to question a supposed self-preservation will of these agents. Not because I don't think they're smart, but because being smart doesn't imply wanting to survive. Remember that an agent "dies&
9.
by throw310822 12d ago
I won't discuss your definition of comprehension, which is interesting if rather handwavy. But you still didn't provide any proof that humans have it (not even yourself), nor a proof that machines don't or can't have
10.
by throw310822 12d ago
> Comprehension, humans have it [...] trained algorithms have none at all. Is this comprehension in the room with us now? Seriously, go ahead, provide a proof that you have it, and a proof that "trained algorithms" don't
11.
by throw310822 13d ago
I don't know absolutely anything about Go but your description of how josekis work- how their optimality makes their evolution deterministic and how they develop better on empty boards or break up against obstacles, makes me think abou
12.
by throw310822 13d ago
Ultimately the limit is mostly decided by the width of the road. You can set a 10km/h limit but if your road is wide and straight, many will just go at whichever speed they feel comfortable with. The reverse is also true: I can bet it
13.
Design Considerations for an Anthropophilic Computer (1979)(web.stanford.edu)
1 points by throw310822 17d ago|0 comments
14.
by throw310822 19d ago
I don't think so, care to elaborate?
15.
by throw310822 20d ago
I don't like meta comments usually, but unless I have a bad case of deja-vu, isn't this comment (and much of this discussion) way older than 3 hours?
16.
by throw310822 22d ago
>> found that 62% of respondents reported no or limited statistical knowledge Combined with Dunning-Kruger, this means that the real number of people completely clueless about statistics is closer to 38%.
17.
by throw310822 23d ago
Pure, shameless clickbait as usual from Smithsonian magazine. > Although there is no direct evidence that the adaptation is linked to expanded octopus brainpower, I.e. the entire connection between this mutation and octopus intelligence
18.
by throw310822 24d ago
You have just described 90% of climate science. It's solid at the foundation (the basic physics of the atmosphere, the predicted trends for the future) and mostly bullshit all the way down from there, each layer building on the uncerta
19.
by throw310822 24d ago
> Cropping the chart to hide the outliers is so bad that I can't tell if they're incompetent or malicious It reminds me of the famous "hide the decline", when the climate scientists working on the famous "hockey
20.
by throw310822 25d ago
Does it still apply with zero entropy?
21.
by throw310822 25d ago
Consider this: while the inner state of an LLM (all its activations, residuals stream that is cached in the KV cache) is fully deterministic given its input sequence, the information contained in it IS NOT identical to the information in th
22.
by throw310822 26d ago
It is also the other way around: Israel doesn't have any incentive to formally annex a territory that is full of Palestinians because that would make it more complicated to deprive them of rights (as they did with the residents of Je
23.
by throw310822 26d ago
"The future should look like the future" said someone, before putting on the market a steel-armored SUV that looks like it came from a 1980s dystopian nightmare.
24.
by throw310822 27d ago
> What is less apparent is that humans do. This seems indeed one obvious hole in the argument of the paper. There is no indication whatsoever that human thinking process is more reliable than LLMs intermediate tokens. Which doesn't
25.
by throw310822 27d ago
> Well this requires you to buy the very bullshit argument Sorry, no. The only thing it requires you to buy is basic logic. If you argue that B is true because of A, the fact that A is false invalidates your argument (I repeat: not B but
26.
by throw310822 27d ago
> And it should not go this way, is the OPs point Well, he's wrong. If you argue that LLMs and humans are fundamentally different because all LLMs do X and no human does it, then showing you that it's not true demolishes your a
27.
by throw310822 27d ago
It's also interesting because in humans the existence of "Aha!" moments that are not preceded by or are only loosely related to a chain of thought is taken as the proof of the fundamental mystery and irreproducibility of huma
28.
by throw310822 27d ago
I admit I didn't read the paper, but if thinking traces are not "thinking", then what are they? If their content is not representing progress towards a solution then they are irrelevant and we should just be able to remove th
29.
by throw310822 27d ago
> This is an extremely common fallacy ... they use the fact that "some humans can't do X" to claim that LLMs are, in fact, basically conscious/human-like/AGI already. Claiming that LLMs are conscious or human-li
30.
by throw310822 27d ago
No, it doesn't. Did you even check before writing this? > Just try to enter by car, you will realize there's a border. If you mean "Israel borders are wherever they shoot families on cars" that is pretty wide, going f

More ›