151–160 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
s/just/exactly But 'Interesting. Please continue?'
The implication is that the AI follows instructions to make contact but the human operators then misinterpret the results as static.
Near the end of the movie Contact, where two higher ranking TLA-agents discuss the lack of evidence for the things the protagonist told, which allegedly happened to her, but weren't captured on anything.
Out of my head...One: 'Bla bla bla.' The other: 'Bla bla just static.' One: 'Yes, exactly 18 hours of static.' The other: 'Continue...' Or something like ironically: 'Interesting. Please continue?'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems unlikely any alien malware could be targeted to affect our computing platforms tell that to the Cylons
The Cyclons were built by humans, had fought a war with them only 40 years before, and most importantly, had human-looking spies living with the humans and seducing the main creator of the computing platform's software to learn its vulnerabilities. They weren't some far-away aliens that had no prior knowledge of the colonies' computing systems.
> outperforms traditional methods in the search for alien signals since we have no ground truth nor have we (to our knowledge) received any alien signals to date, I don't see how you can determine performance in terms of accuracy; so maybe they mean an increase in processing speed
Well, they can train the model on things we know _aren't_ alien signals. Edit: From the article: > To train the AI system, Ma inserted simulated signals into actual data, allowing the autoencoder to learn what to look for. Then the researchers fed the AI more than 150 terabytes of data from 480 observing hours at the Green Bank Telescope. The simulated signals were sounds that couldn't possibly be produced by any (kn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you would like to reject scientific materialism (and the empiricism and the dispassionate utilitarianism that go with it), go ahead. Just don't try to frame your conclusions as objective truth, or known scientific results like the GP.
> Just don't try to frame your conclusions as objective truth, or known scientific results like the GP. To clarify this objection is to @nyrikki's (incorrect) claim that "NLU is an example of a problem that is thought to be impossible for Turing machines/algorithms" and not to anything that @drdeca said right? I think you are agreeing emphatically with @drdeca but it's possible to read this comment as an objection to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The implication is that the AI follows instructions to make contact but the human operators then misinterpret the results as static.
Hm. That wasn't what I've been referring to. Near the end of the movie Contact, where two higher ranking TLA-agents discuss the lack of evidence for the things the protagonist told, which allegedly happened to her, but weren't captured on anything. Out of my head...One: 'Bla bla bla.' The other: 'Bla bla just static.' One: 'Yes, exactly 18 hours of static.' The other: 'Continue...' Or something like ironically: 'Inte…
Here is the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeUuFHGj6TM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you would like to reject scientific materialism (and the empiricism and the dispassionate utilitarianism that go with it), go ahead. Just don't try to frame your conclusions as objective truth, or known scientific results like the GP.
Right, or.. Ok, uh, I don’t think one has to really reject empiricism to reject scientific materialism? Or, err, by “empiricism” do you mean like, “support for doing experiments, and keeping track of the results and what models work good to explain them, etc.”, or do you mean stuff like “rejecting anything that doesn’t have good scientific evidence behind it”? One can do the former without doing the latter. When I ex…
Honestly, I added "keep your models as simple as you can" into it. But any way you cut empiricism, it's actually utilitarianism that can be seen, so it's the one where the correct fine-cutting is important (hum... well, if you keep an utilitarian point of view). Anyway, utilitarianism tends to align with the version of empiricism biased into getting computable models.
And, of course, none of those deal with purpose questions.
Anyway, your comment there is great. What I disagree is on conceding space to something like the one above yours, because it's a misleading text that implies something very different from what it says.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm. That wasn't what I've been referring to. Near the end of the movie Contact, where two higher ranking TLA-agents discuss the lack of evidence for the things the protagonist told, which allegedly happened to her, but weren't captured on anything. Out of my head...One: 'Bla bla bla.' The other: 'Bla bla just static.' One: 'Yes, exactly 18 hours of static.' The other: 'Continue...' Or something like ironically: 'Inte…
Yes and my implication was that if we replaced those TLA agents with an AGI then the "Interesting. Please continue." might not be asked by a human, or at all because it is "just" (merely, not barely) static. Here is the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeUuFHGj6TM .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The missing text problem from NLU is an example of a problem that is thought to be impossible for Turing machines/algorithms but is trivial in most cases for humans. I'm not aware of any mainstream researcher who thinks the missing text problem[1] is impossible for Turing machines. Perhaps some think neural networks are insufficient to achieve it, but this is a different thing. [1] https://thegradient.pub/machine-l…
ChatGPT is state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) NOT NLU
It's just software and it solves the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are currently discussing exploits designs by foreign intelligences to infect artificially intelligent systems. We are not talking about privilege escalation on a Mac.
That's where you're confused. The only one insisting the topic under discussion is the infection of AI systems (as opposed to classical computing systems) is you...