381–390 of 800 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you should make your goal to teach AndrewKemendo to appreciate his existence as the inscrutable gift it is, and to spend his brief time in this universe helping others appreciate the great gift they've been given and using it to the fullest. See how it works?
I’m a father of three I already know all about that there’s nothing you’re gonna teach me there I’m fully integrated
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you replace "taxes" with more general "investment", it's everywhere. A good example is Amazon that has reworked itself from an online bookstore into a global supplier of everything by ruthlessly reinvesting the profits. Taxes don't usually work as efficiently because the state is usually a much more sloppy investor. But it's far from hopeless, see DARPA. If you're looking for periods of high taxes and growing pros…
With the odd story that we paid the price for it in the long term. This book https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Sum-Society-Distribution-Possibi... tells the compelling story that the Mellon family teamed up with the steelworker's union to use protectionism to protect the American steel industry's investments in obsolete open hearth steel furnaces that couldn't compete on a fair market with the basic oxygen furnace process…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't talking about "here’s how LLMs actually work" in this context a bit like saying "a human can't be a relevant to X because a brain is only a set of molecules, neurons, synapses"? Or even "this book won't have any effect on the world because it's only a collection of letters, see here, black ink on paper, that is what is IS, it can't DO anything"... Saying LLM is a statistical prediction engine of the next token…
Its pretty clear that the problem of solving AI is software, I don't think anyone would disagree. But that problem is MUCH MUCH MUCH harder than people make it out to be. For example, you can reliably train an LLM to produce accurate output of assembly code that can fit into a context window. However, lets say you give it a Terabyte of assembly code - it won't be able to produce correct output as it will run out of c…
This doesn't seem to follow at all let alone obviously? Humans are able to reason through code without having to become a completely discrete computer, but probably can't reason through any length of assembly code, so why is that requirement necessary and how have you shown LLMs can't achieve human levels of competence on this kind of task?
This is delightfully unhinged, spending an amazing amount of time describing their model and citing their methodologies before getting to the meat of the meal many of us have been braying about for years: whether the singularity actually happens or not is irrelevant so much as whether enough people believe it will happen and act accordingly. And, yep! A lot of people absolutely believe it will and are acting accordin…
Isn't talking about "here’s how LLMs actually work" in this context a bit like saying "a human can't be a relevant to X because a brain is only a set of molecules, neurons, synapses"? Or even "this book won't have any effect on the world because it's only a collection of letters, see here, black ink on paper, that is what is IS, it can't DO anything"... Saying LLM is a statistical prediction engine of the next token…
In this context, "here’s how LLMs actually work" is what allows someone to have an informed opinion on whether a singularity is coming or not. If you don't understand how they work, then any company trying to sell their AI, or any random person on the Internet, can easily convince you that a singularity is coming without any evidence.
This is separate from directly answering the question "is a singularity coming?"
> I [...] fit a hyperbolic model to each one independently ^ That's your problem right there. Assuming a hyperbolic model would definitely result in some exuberant predictions but that's no reason to think it's correct. The blog post contains no justification for that model (besides well it's a "function that hits infinity"). I can model the growth of my bank account the same way but that doesn't make it so. Unfortun…
The coming Singularity: When human institutions will cease being able to coherently react to monads!
Phew, so we won't have to deal with the Year 2038 Unix timestamp roll over after all.
Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. ... Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind. -- Frank Herbert, Dune You won't read, except the output of your LLM. You won't write, except prompts for your LLM. Why write code or prose when the machine can write it for you? You won't think or…
I like to do it.
>You won't think or analyze or understand. The LLM will do that.
The clear lack of analysis seems to be your issue.
>This is the end of your humanity. Ultimately, the end of our species.
Doubtful.
Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. ... Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind. -- Frank Herbert, Dune You won't read, except the output of your LLM. You won't write, except prompts for your LLM. Why write code or prose when the machine can write it for you? You won't think or…
"The end of humanity" has been proclaimed many times over. Humanity won't end. It will change like it always has. We get rid of some problems, and we get a bunch of new problems instead. And on, and on, and on.
> I [...] fit a hyperbolic model to each one independently ^ That's your problem right there. Assuming a hyperbolic model would definitely result in some exuberant predictions but that's no reason to think it's correct. The blog post contains no justification for that model (besides well it's a "function that hits infinity"). I can model the growth of my bank account the same way but that doesn't make it so. Unfortun…
He's looking for a model that works for the story in the media and runs with it.
Your criticism seems to be criticizing the story, not the author's attempt to take it "seriously"