61–70 of 226 posts
But at the same time when you hold your hands back it can look even weirder! Where to put your hands in photos remains a mystery to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought about this too. People say that LLM models are only saying the most common tokens that come after the previous token. And that this makes them incomparable to human intelligence. But Humans are basically long running LLMs that are retrained in real-time. We are the product of our environment.
You’re vastly oversimplifying humans. That’s like saying a physics simulation is basically an entire sub universe on your computer. It sounds true, but it’s just not. It’s a gross oversimplification I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI. No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “hum…
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without taking a particular position on how the probabilities shake out, I suggest critically reading “What We Owe the Future” by William MacAskill and:or other long-term writings that use statistical thinking over a wide range of future scenarios.
Creator of "Centre for Effective Altruism"? Longtermism? No thanks. I thought that philosophy has been debunked as a scam after the likes of Sam Bankman and others. I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me.
Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average.
If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so.
...there are many ways to make utilitarianism fall apart, but that one's my current favorite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think that? What we can LLMs are a specific architecture that literally does predict the next token, one at a time. This isn’t the only way to generate text. Perhaps humans use a method that synthesizes all the text at once. Or some other, unimaginable way.
Not sure about everyone else, but I write one word at a time.
And if you believe you do that subconsciously, then how can you be sure you don’t subconsciously plan a few words ahead?
I like Carmack but is it really necessary to have a post about everytime he mentions AI (which is every week for the past year)? So far, his track record in AI research is non-existent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_S._Sutton
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought about this too. People say that LLM models are only saying the most common tokens that come after the previous token. And that this makes them incomparable to human intelligence. But Humans are basically long running LLMs that are retrained in real-time. We are the product of our environment.
You’re vastly oversimplifying humans. That’s like saying a physics simulation is basically an entire sub universe on your computer. It sounds true, but it’s just not. It’s a gross oversimplification I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI. No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “hum…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps there is some belief in this that an AGI can save us from our biggest problems? Energy Crisis, Environmental Pollution, Waging Wars. But I agree with you ... it is not really urgent since we know answers for the most of the problems but do not like the solution.
A true AGI would determine the only solution to our crisis is the elimination of the human race...
Their focus is long running digital intelligences that interact with their environment over long periods of time. I enjoyed reading The Alberta Plan when it was released earlier this year https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11173
Ethics/privacy aside ... I wondered the other day what the result would be if you strapped a microphone on a baby and every utterance that both the baby and mic heard was fed through speech-to-text and went toward training the baby's personal LLM . By the time the child had grown to an adult I wonder what kind of results their LLM would produce and the degree to which it might compare to what the child (now grown) wo…
Published in 1990, by the way.
All the sci-fi seems think this. I have seen Intel chips from the 80s that implemented neuron like behavior on a chip.
We are still waiting on a practical memristor.