Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

longbets.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–105 of 105 posts

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#101

Post by keane »

iansmith_hn wrote: post #66
fragmede wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, and pay registrar and hosting fees for 100 years, and then just hope the hosting company doesn't fold in the interim after your passing. The problem isn't "can you make sure it stays up while you're alive", the problem is, after you're gone, you're no longer there to keep the flame alive and there are no guarantees anyone else picks up the torch.

Does this suggest a subscription(ish) business where you pay the hosting company for N years and then they ensure your website stays up and unchanged for N years after you die? Quality control issue? Given how many things want me to pay a subscription while I'm alive, surely somebody will start charging me when I'm dead. It is the logical conclusion of SaaS. I wanted to create an acronym for this, but death as a serv…

There’s the WordPress 100 Year Plan or 100 Year Domain: https://wordpress.com/100-year/

100-Year Plan: $38,000 (hosting and domain)

100-Year Domain: $2,000 (one-time purchase, no annual renewals)

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#102

Post by sire-vc »

andai wrote: post #30
CSMastermind wrote: post #18

It's worth noting that some prediction URLs, for instance: https://longbets.org/6/ are offline. The original long bet was whether or not computers could pass the turing test by 2029: https://longbets.org/1/ You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. https://longbets.org/9/ is another interesting one depending on whether you think…

There was a paper a while ago, where they found a strategy for GPT beating humans on the Turing test 2/3rds of the time. They just prompted it to talk the way a 13 year old girl texts. (Also they prompted it to pretend not to know anything about anything.)

https://xkcd.com/2635/

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#103

Post by tsimionescu »

9dev wrote: post #100
tsimionescu wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give that it's impossible to even listen on port 443 on a phone, as that would require root privileges, I don't think you can host your website on your phone at all, at least not if you want it to accessible in a normal way. And that's not even going into all of the problems with running background apps on a phone, especially on iOS.

By I could , I meant that my phone has a persistent connection uninterruptedly long enough to be theoretically able to serve a website in the background. There are all sorts of (arbitrary, mind you) technical limitations, from the IPv6 address randomly changing as you roam across networks to iOS killing background processes - but those are software limitations. The point was that mobile device doesn't equate spotty c…

Even in this idea of "could in principle", the IP address randomly changing as you roam is not an arbitrary technical limitation, it is a fundamental property of how IP networks operate that proved to be too hard to fix for IPv6. The LTE network does a lot of work to try to preserve your IP as seen by the servers you connect to, to preserve your active connections, but this could only be done as a layer on top of IP.

The reason why this is fundamentally quite hard is to do with routing optimization. Routing tables have to reflect physical connectivity - which means packets destined for F2::67 mustn't be routed to LA if that is the IP of a phone that is now resident in SF. However, changing routing tables on all devices along the way as a phone roams would not be an easy feat.

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#104

Post by prplxd_nihilist »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #53
tsimionescu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd think that LLMs fulfill this, but I do wonder if a clever human could still discern between them given their particularities. I think the clear winning strategy is to find some of the common sense reasoning fails that are still quite common, like the "should I walk or drive to the car wash" one from a few months ago.

These are usually from a missing context (i.e. specifying where the car is right now). Tokenizer issues (how many Xs are in Y) are a better giveaway, but models can solve them using tools nowadays. I think the best way to uncover an LLM is to reveal its superhuman aspects. Ask it for an A* algorithm for your problem. If it can just type down a working algorithm in a few seconds, that is definitely not a human. Althou…

> These are usually from a missing context (i.e. specifying where the car is right now).

That shouldn't be an issue. The very act of taking the car to car wash contains the information that it is with you and you are at your home. Doesn't this prove that LLMs don't actually think?

Re: The original URL for this prediction will no longer be available in 11 years (2011)

#105

Post by DonaldFisk »

wasmperson wrote: post #99
DonaldFisk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If something is indistinguishable from a human in its outward behavior, then I'd be forced to admit that it's as intelligent/conscious/sentient/whatever as a human, regardless of how it works internally. It's not like I make my friends take an MRI before I decide whether they're intelligent. You can be reasonably sure about your friends, as they're sufficiently like you to leave little doubt. I disagree but can und…

I have no way of knowing whether other people are conscious except by observing their behavior. Similarly, I have no way of knowing whether a machine is conscious except by observing its behavior. If something is outwardly indistinguishable from an intelligent/conscious/sentient/whatever being and you claim that it's still not i/c/s/w, then you've implicitly accepted the possibility that all humans besides you are no…

I initially responded to CSMastermind whose post explicitly mentioned LLMs and the Turing test, which involves interacting with a computer solely by typing and reading text. You first mentioned consciousness.

We can tell that other people are intelligent and conscious because they're like us in important ways and we are intelligent and conscious. I haven't ruled out intelligent machines in general. My point was about the inadequacy of the Turing Test.

Post reply on HN