391–394 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like it's already been pretty well digested and excreted for the most part, now we're into the re-ingestion phase until the bubble bursts.
I am tech founder, who spends most of my day in my own startup deploying LLM-based tools into my own operations, and I'm maybe 1% of the way through the roadmap I'd like to build with what exists and is possible to do today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair to your parents, I've been an engineer in high-tech for decades and the latest AI advancements feel pretty magical.
They feel magical to me as well, but I can enjoy that feeling while understanding that it’s just a prediction machine. I don’t think the latter part can be explained to someone who doesn’t care all that much.
Plus it's a massive prediction machine trained on a corpus of the bulk of human knowledge.
Feels weird to see it minimized in that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like chollet's definition: something that can quickly learn any skill without any innate prior knowledge or training.
I like Chollet's line of thinking. Yet, if you take "any" literally, the answer is simple - there will never be one. Not even for practical reasons, but closer to why there isn't "a set of all sets". Picking a sensible benchmark is the hard part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mmmm well my meatsuit can't easily make my own heart quiver the wrong way and kill me. Computers can treat data as code and code as data all pretty easily. It's core to several languages (like lisp). As such making illegal instructions or violating the straightjacket of a system such an "intelligence" would operate in is likely. If you could make an intelligent process, what would it think of an operating system kern…
> Mmmm well my meatsuit can't easily make my own heart quiver the wrong way and kill me. It very much can. Jump scares, deep grief are known to cause heart attacks. It is called stress cardiomyopathy. Or your meatsuit can indiredtly do that by ingesting the wrong chemicals. > If you could make an intelligent process, what would it think of an operating system kernel Idk. What do you think of your hypothalamus? It can…
> Yes. You can’t? This is not > really a convincing argument.
Fair, I believe it's called begging the question. But for some context is that people of many recent technological ages have talked about the brain like a piece of technology -- e.g. like a printing press, a radio, a TV.
I think we've found what we've wanted to find (a hardware-software dichotomy in the brain) and then occasionally get surprised when things aren't all that clearly separated. So with that in mind, I personally without any particularly good evidence to the contrary am not of the belief that your brain can be represented as a static state. Pribram's holonomic mind theory comes to mind as a possible way brain state could have trouble being represented in RAM.( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory)
> ...you are looking at implementation details and feeling a disconnect between that and the possibility of inteligence. Do you feel the same ridiculousnes about a meatblob doing things and appearing inteligent?
If I was a biologist I might. My grandfather was a microbiologist and scoffed at my atheism. But with a computer at least the details are understandable and knowable being created by people. We haven't cracked the consciousness of a fruit fly despite having a map of it's brain.
>> a computer couldn't spontaneously pick to go down a path that wasn't defined for it.
> Can you?
Love it. I re-read Fight Club recently, it's a reasonable question. The worries of determinism versus free will still loom large in this sort of world view. We get a kind of "god in the gaps" type problem with free will being reduced down to the spaces where you don't have an explanation.