151–160 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, this is almost poetic: Classic plays, wholly told. Shadow into form, hands as cue. Keep it at the dial, in right on Pitch.
Chin salute, old ears new. If art is regarded for it's ability to make you feel, I definitely feel ... something. There is a strict form it's following and a rhythm to the words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your questions all grew up in a world where the people operating the thing knew some rationalist who could think deductively about its operation. But neural networks... they're an exercise in empiricism. We only ever understood that it works, never why. It's sort of a miracle that it doesn't produce buggy output all the time. What do you tell people when they want to know why the miracles have stopped? Root c…
I’d genuinely expect the people who built and operate the thing to have a far better write up than what amounted to “it no worked lol”. Sure, NN’s are opaque, but this org paints itself as the herald and shepard of ai and they just produced a write up that’s hardly worthy of a primary-school-child’s account of their recent holiday.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's even more uncanny is that it recognizes that it briefly went into a paragraph of rambling nonsense (that was seemingly still following your system prompt!). And almost seems embarrassed about it.
Embarrassment seems to be the default state whenever you question ChatGPT or any of its messages. It will apologise, only to continue making the same error. This is common when it gives you code with obvious errors or just mirror code you gave it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying rocks are conscious is a poor summary. It's more like adult human > human child > dolphin > dog > human infant > bird > snake > spider > ant > dust mite etc. The whole thing is a continuum and everything is made of matter, so there's a little bit of potential consciousness in all matter.
I'm trying to think of a civil and constructive way to say "bullshit". I guess an obvious objection is "why?". Then something about Russell's teapot. There could be consciousness hidden in every atom, in some physics-defying way that we can't yet comprehend: there could also be garden furniture hidden up my nose, or a teapot hidden far out in the solar system, which is the most likely of the three since it's at least…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Embarrassment seems to be the default state whenever you question ChatGPT or any of its messages. It will apologise, only to continue making the same error. This is common when it gives you code with obvious errors or just mirror code you gave it.
I couldn't stand that so my custom instructions tell it to never apologize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying rocks are conscious is a poor summary. It's more like adult human > human child > dolphin > dog > human infant > bird > snake > spider > ant > dust mite etc. The whole thing is a continuum and everything is made of matter, so there's a little bit of potential consciousness in all matter.
> Saying rocks are conscious is a poor summary > The whole thing is a continuum and everything is made of matter, so there's a little bit of potential consciousness in all matter I disagree that my summary is "poor"–because some panpsychists do say that rocks are actually conscious individuals, as opposed to merely containing "a little bit of potential consciousness". The IEP article I linked contains this quote from…
A rock exists in the world and exerts it's "will" granted to it by the laws of physics. So rolling falling etc is how it "interacts" with its world. You can think of our brains as a bunch of tiny rocks (atoms) rolling around and banging into each other in the same way a macro rock does in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your questions all grew up in a world where the people operating the thing knew some rationalist who could think deductively about its operation. But neural networks... they're an exercise in empiricism. We only ever understood that it works, never why. It's sort of a miracle that it doesn't produce buggy output all the time. What do you tell people when they want to know why the miracles have stopped? Root c…
I’d genuinely expect the people who built and operate the thing to have a far better write up than what amounted to “it no worked lol”. Sure, NN’s are opaque, but this org paints itself as the herald and shepard of ai and they just produced a write up that’s hardly worthy of a primary-school-child’s account of their recent holiday.
>> inference kernels produced incorrect results when used in certain GPU configurations. It seems reasonable to assume that GPT inference is done entirely on Nvidia GPUs. I wonder if this is a subtle clue that they're experimenting with getting it to run on competing hardware.
Why would they subtly hint at anything they’re trying to keep secret?
I experienced this personally and it kinda freaked me out. Here is the chat in question, it occurs about halfway through (look for ChatGPT using emojis) https://chat.openai.com/share/74bd7c02-79b5-4c99-a3a5-97b83f... EDIT: Note that my personal instructions tell ChatGPT to refer to itself as Chaz in the third person. I find this fun. EDIT2: Here is a snippet of the conversation on pastebin: https://pastebin.com/AXzd6…