271–280 of 641 posts
We don’t even agree on a good definition of what’s going on inside our own heads yet, what gives you the confidence to say that what goes on inside an LLM can’t be conscious?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you know, I deeply respect you. Not trying to argue here, just provide my own perspective: > Why would a writer put an article online if ChatGPT will slurp it up and regurgitate it back to users without anyone ever even finding the original article? I write things for two main reasons: I feel like I have to. I need to create things. On some level, I would write stuff down even if nobody reads it (and I do do that…
> I don't mean that thinks that everyone has to share my perspective. It's just my own. I think you are walking all around the word "consent" and trying very hard to avoid it altogether. Your perspective, because it refuses to include any sort of consent, is invalid. No perspective that refuses consent can be valid.
You may need to clarify that thought.
I don't think the poster has a viewpoint that 'refuses consent', their viewpoint is their writing they put for others to view is for others to view, regardless of how it is viewed. They seem to be giving consent, not refusing it, no?
I hesitate to tamper with an internet master's title, but "The Future of Everything is Lies, I Guess" doesn't really summarize what in fact is a balanced, informed overview which (to me at least) is above the median for one of these thought pieces. Since it's also baity and the HN guidelines ask for such titles to be rewritten, I've taken the license. In such cases we always try to find a phrase from the article itse…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it linked it: https://github.com/everything8215/ff6 (check the end)
I saw; I replied up there
I hesitate to tamper with an internet master's title, but "The Future of Everything is Lies, I Guess" doesn't really summarize what in fact is a balanced, informed overview which (to me at least) is above the median for one of these thought pieces. Since it's also baity and the HN guidelines ask for such titles to be rewritten, I've taken the license. In such cases we always try to find a phrase from the article itse…
But.. that's always been the case? Diminishing returns has always been the name of the game - utility tracks log(training effort). Its not such a big point that he makes it out to be.
> It remains unclear whether continuing to throw vast quantities of silicon and ever-bigger corpuses at the current generation of models will lead to human-equivalent capabilities. Massive increases in training costs and parameter count seem to be yielding diminishing returns. Or maybe this effect is illusory. Mysteries! I’m not even sure whether this is possible. The current corpus used for training includes virtual…
> Claude launched into a detailed explanation of the differential equations governing slumping cantilevered beams. It completely failed to recognize that the snow was entirely supported by the roof, not hanging out over space. No physicist would make this mistake, but LLMs do this sort of thing all the time. You have to meet some physicist friends of mine then. They are likely to assume that the roof is spherical and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://chatgpt.com/share/69d6a38c-bd54-838c-82e3-609d9e66c9... I used the thinking version (like I asked before). I think this is right. If not, please tell. Also; you didn’t falsify anything. Nor the first. Nor the second. If the second one is bullshit, I accept I’m wrong - I have no idea how to verify though so I’ll leave it up to you. I think yours is the classic case of “use the free version to judge the paid on…
I could quibble with some things, but this is right. I don't have a paid account so I can't ping away at 5.4 or whatever, but, I do have access to frontier models at work, and they hallucinate regularly. Dunno what to do if you don't believe this; good luck I guess.
1. 2-3 pages of text context
2. GPT-5.4 thinking
I don't think the spirit of the original article (not your comments to be fair) captured this, hence the challenge. I believe we are on the same page here.
I think it's too early to declare the Turing test passed. You just need to have a conversation long enough to exhaust the context window. Less than that, since response quality degrades long before you hit hard window limits. Even with compaction. Neuroplasticity is hard to simulate in a few hundred thousand tokens.