341–350 of 567 posts
I'd rather read something a little bit more realistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a vast gulf between theoretically possible and technologically feasible. If you can’t provide a realistic path to achieve something, you’re asking people to believe in science fiction. You could tell me that a rock’s molecules are comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Blood is also entirely protons, neutrons, and electrons; so theoretically, one could rearrange stone into blood. But without an actua…
Jesus... This morning while I was drinking coffee and staring at the screen (it's Saturday) an agent did the equivalent of days of my work, reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, using tools, writing scripts, launching compilers and running tests, identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more. Only someone who hasn't spent a second reflecting about what it means to think and to be intelligent…
Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeup: https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/
We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus... This morning while I was drinking coffee and staring at the screen (it's Saturday) an agent did the equivalent of days of my work, reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, using tools, writing scripts, launching compilers and running tests, identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more. Only someone who hasn't spent a second reflecting about what it means to think and to be intelligent…
> reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, ...identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeup: https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saying that if you don't like how a golf course is being used, then attend an auction of one, because they are rapidly going out of business and the assets being auctioned off. America is not suffering from too many golf courses being constructed. They are, rather, going extinct, and I don't really think the mass loss of green spaces and third spaces is necessarily a good thing, even though I'm not someone who en…
> I don't really think the mass loss of green spaces and third spaces is necessarily a good thing Maybe we could make them public green spaces and third spaces, instead of exclusive clubs? Many golf courses are really expensive. Golf itself is dying like you said, because it's a very expensive sport Idk. There's something like 35 golf courses where I live in Calgary and it's a city of less than 2 million people. That…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus... This morning while I was drinking coffee and staring at the screen (it's Saturday) an agent did the equivalent of days of my work, reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, using tools, writing scripts, launching compilers and running tests, identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more. Only someone who hasn't spent a second reflecting about what it means to think and to be intelligent…
> reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, ...identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeup: https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
> We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
It sounds like you're saying "We don't know how brains work, they're mysterious, there's something 'extra' happening", and using that as justification for why you're saying a computer, an AI, can't "understand".
I think most people on Hackernews now who would use the phrase "my AI worked overnight and hypothesized, compared, etc..." already know how an LLM works, and still chooses to use those words. So the issue isn't that they don't understand. It's that they understand and still use those words. So the disagreement is somewhere else.
This is religious fervor folks, as AI 2027 was. I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner, the same way it has been since I was a small child and likely will be when we are all gone. This isn't science. This isn't hypothesis experiment record results. This is very expensive astrology, shiny rock collecting, ritualistic meaning-making and self-justification. Yall…
You can change more people’s lives, more substantially, if you donate effectively. Effective altruism started out as (and the majority of effective altruist financing is committed to) an effort to rationalize what has historically been a very emotionally driven activity by deploying insights from developmental economics. If you want to take longtermists to task, go right ahead, but please refrain from torching anti-malarial or child vaccination programs while doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, ...identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeup: https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
This feels like a semantic disagreement to me? If an LLM got to an acceptable end result code-wise, what would you call the process that took place to get it there?
This is religious fervor folks, as AI 2027 was. I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner, the same way it has been since I was a small child and likely will be when we are all gone. This isn't science. This isn't hypothesis experiment record results. This is very expensive astrology, shiny rock collecting, ritualistic meaning-making and self-justification. Yall…
It's nuts how well "Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People"[0] aged. That talk is a decade old by now and still hits just as hard as it did back then, despite the incredible advances made in AI in the meantime. [0] https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, ...identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeup: https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
Now show me a writeup that explains how the brain works so I can understand why the brain does those things. > We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening. It sounds like you're saying "We don't know how brains work, they're mysterious, there's something 'extra' happening", and using that as justification for why you're saying a computer, an AI, can't "understand". I think…
OTOH we do know how neural nets work, and they definitely don't do "thinking" or "reasoning".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus... This morning while I was drinking coffee and staring at the screen (it's Saturday) an agent did the equivalent of days of my work, reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, using tools, writing scripts, launching compilers and running tests, identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more. Only someone who hasn't spent a second reflecting about what it means to think and to be intelligent…
> reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, ...identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeup: https://www.0xkato.xyz/how-llms-actually-work/ We know how these machines work, it's not mysterious, there's nothing "extra" happening.
Lol. This is more telling about your implicit unscientific preconceptions that you wanted to reveal. Of course there isn't anything "extra". Where do you think intelligence comes from, some mysterious realm? It's physical, computational. The fact that at the bottom we produced it via matrix multiplication is irrelevant. Maybe humbling. You are denying a visible fact (a machine performs tasks that require flexible analytical and cognitive skills) precisely because there is no magic happening anywhere.