241–250 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also very... American to not think mention the absurdity of machine guns at airports, even in the hands of humans. Even if lethal force is required, would you want a security person (not a trained policeman) to "start blasting" and spraying bullets with a machine-gun?
I have never seen people armed with machine guns at a US airport.
> But if it becomes cheaper to use a machine to make, say, a pair of shoes, then the shoes are cheaper, more people can buy shoes and they have more money to spend on other things besides, and we discover new things we need or want, and new jobs. This sounds really similar to trickle down economics.
No, because what he described actually works. Clothing used to be hugely expensive: https://www.bookandsword.com/2017/12/09/how-much-did-a-shirt... > So the shirts of humble servants at Henry VIII’s court cost between 3 and 10 days’ income. That would be similar to someone who earns 10 dollars or Euros an hour spending 240 to 800 dollars or Euros on an item today. (Of course, in the 15th and 16th century, people spen…
It's interesting that in some domains there is not diferencial there is no 10k iphone and you can get a massive TV fairly cheaply. And yes commodity clothing is cheep.
If it was not already obvious we create new forms of value that shift as commodity product become common place or mas market items.
That shift to new forms of value inherently depends on scarcity and that scarcity can only exist as a sum of non-commodity goods, creating new opportunities to fill that pursuit of diferencial value and experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A security guard at an airport can be a a machine gun on wheels" - are you serious? That is a job which is 99.99% about understanding human intentions in confusing and ambiguous situations, and where making a mistake will literally kill people. It's the last job you want to automate with "AI".
>> It's the last job you want to automate with "AI". Have you been at the Charles de Gaulle Airport in France? The security people there look like paratroopers[^1]. It's terrifying, and it's a reason I avoid that particular airport every time I fly. It sends the message "Paris is an unsafe place to be, we are very paranoid, blame the others, don't come here." The machine guns have no business among civilians, being w…
Of those that do, firearms officers - why would they carry a handgun?
And you are right - there is of course an element of security theatre!
No one who claims to automate testing ever seems to have a sophisticated understanding of testing. I suspect the urge people have for automating anything comes not from the love and skill they possess for that activity, but rather for the imagined fruits of it. Software testing is easy to fake, which means it’s particularly easy to claim automation accomplished. Therefore, all these people thinking they are going to…
Someone could’ve made the same arguments about automating horse-drawn carriages. Even the safety arguments would fit: going faster would be much more dangerous. I think it’s a good idea to keep an open mind and see what happens. You might be right, but if you’re wrong, you’d be better served to be ready for it. Which seems more likely: that it’s impossible to automate testing with AI, or that it might be possible?
They can't make the same argument because the experience is first hand and can't be faked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It utterly befuddles me that so many people still can't (or refuse to) sense what's coming. Be it bad or good the magnitude of what is now unfolding is beyond everything that homo sapiens have ever witnessed. Unless we think that MI advancement will miraculously stall and never improve beyond current capabilities, I cannot conceive of future, even a near future, that we recognize as real. >I think then we have some b…
I don't know, that's quite the romantic take. I can easily admit I don't know what's coming, but _homo sapiens have ever witnessed_... _cannot conceive of near future that we recognize as real_. Come on, lol Imagine yourself in the movie Apocalypto and I'm using a Hollywood film on purpose here - the entire Universe of being as you see it all the sudden explodes its Universe with new Gods/demons different and more po…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, that's quite the romantic take. I can easily admit I don't know what's coming, but _homo sapiens have ever witnessed_... _cannot conceive of near future that we recognize as real_. Come on, lol Imagine yourself in the movie Apocalypto and I'm using a Hollywood film on purpose here - the entire Universe of being as you see it all the sudden explodes its Universe with new Gods/demons different and more po…
Is this GPT-2 generated? I've tired reading it three times and I still can't make heads or tails of it.
not sure what's not understandable. I think parent is overly hyperbolic. i get that chat GPT is unprecedented, but come on "impossible to conceive of near-term reality" ???
edit: oh! you're the parent. yeah i think you're wildly hyperbolic. There's more drastic historical precedents but of course the future is by definition going to be inevitably more inconceivable over a long enough arc, so I don't think of this as a debate. I just think you're being overly dramatic for effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The combination of ChatGPT and Phind helped me, a noob with 8 months of coding knowledge, build an app with real paying users and revenue. I would have never accomplished this on my own, and now I have a working prototype to find co-founders and possible investors.
Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. I've tried phind and it's almost always worse than a Google search. It often has a reasonable answer, but with Google I typically find more complete information and sometimes better rebuttals and alternatives. I view the thing as a neat toy. Can you learn from it? Maybe. But if you think this allows you to learn something you couldn't otherwise, I wonder if you're really being honest wi…
I have no delusions that this is making me a good coder, or that I can carry this beyond the prototype stage - I fully intend to find a CTO/co-founder. But for someone going from 0 to 1, this has been a fantastic tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Llms don't have to support something internally to know about those concepts, those are entirely different things. > Such problems can also be expressed as integer programs but even fewer people know how to do that so I don't usually bring it up but it would be another good test for any software system that is claimed to be intelligent by the corporate marketing department. It's very telling if the level of testing i…
What exactly are you confused about? Plenty of people can learn about constraint propagation and integer programming but LLMs do not have the capability to solve integer programs because LLMs (and neural networks in general) are not generally intelligent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you have a wildly different bar than the vast majority of the people in any agi conversation and should state this upfront.
What exactly do you want me to state up front? A general intelligence can solve general problems when those problems are formally specified. Sudoku is a good example of a formally specified problem that can be solved by most people but not by LLMs. This is because LLMs and all neural networks are simply DAGs of function which do not support recursion or backtracking. Adding recursion to neural networks has been tried…
> What exactly do you want me to state up front?
Exactly what was in your comment that I told you to state up front.
Most people in a discussion about AI and replacing people are working with a definition of general intelligence that includes humans to a large degree.
> This is because LLMs and all neural networks are simply DAGs of function which do not support recursion or backtracking.
Without adding external state I can't solve a sudoku puzzle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly are you confused about? Plenty of people can learn about constraint propagation and integer programming but LLMs do not have the capability to solve integer programs because LLMs (and neural networks in general) are not generally intelligent.
I'm not confused I'm saying you're conflating two things - understanding something and being able to perform it in a single pass. Neither llms nor humans have to be able to solve a sudoku puzzle to write code that can. I can be awful at mental arithmetic and write code for a calculator.