441–450 of 605 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is to be f*cking honest
This contribution adds nothing to the conversation except gratuitous venom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't heard a good argument for why AGI isn't already here. It has average humans beat and seems generally to be better-than-novice in any given field that requires intelligence. They play Go, they write music, they've read Shakespeare, they are better at empathy and conversation than most. What more are we asking AI to do? And can a normal human do it?
> they are better at empathy and conversation than most Imagine the conversations this guy must have with people IRL lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you so sure it is not capable of cognition?
Nice try. The onus is on you to prove the extraordinary claim that we have invented actual artificial cognition.
My claim is that an llm acts the same way (or superset) to how a person with short term memory would behave if the only mode they could communicate with was text. Do you agree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One upon a time in SF i was told that human-driven cars would be illegal, or too expensive to insure, by the end of the decade. That was last decade. The modern tech economy is all about bubbles biult and sustained by hype people. Vertical farming. Pot replacing alcohol. Blockchains replacing lawyers. The metaverse replacing everything. Sure, we are in an AI bubble but we aslo ride atop a dozen others. AI data center…
I'm quite skeptical of the data centers in space claim, but I think a proof of concept can certainly be achieved in five years. I'm less convinced that we'll ever see widescale deployment of data center satellites. And to be fair, I've read that Google's timelines for this project extend far beyond a 5 year horizon. I think it's a rational research direction for them, since it gets people excited and historically man…
Why though?
Why would anyone need a server in space in the first place? What is a benefit for that location, necessitating a cost an order of magnitude higher (or more) compared to a warehouse anywhere on the planet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice try. The onus is on you to prove the extraordinary claim that we have invented actual artificial cognition.
I can do it. My claim is that an llm acts the same way (or superset) to how a person with short term memory would behave if the only mode they could communicate with was text. Do you agree?
And I do not agree. LLMs are literally incapable of understanding the concept of truth, right/wrong, knowledge and not-knowledge. It seems pretty crucial to be able to tell if you know something or not for any level of human-level intelligence.
Again, this conversation has been had in many variations constantly since LLMs were on the rise, and we can't rehash the same points over and over. If one believes LLMs are capable of cognition, they should offer formal proof first, otherwise we're just wasting our time.
That said, I wonder if there are major differences in cognition between humans, because there is no way I would look at how my brain works and think "oh, this LLM is capable of the same level of cognition as I am." Not because I am ineffably smart, but because LLMs are utterly simplistic in comparison to even a fruit fly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am sorry for you. You must surround yourself with a lot of awful people. That is pretty sad to read. Get out of whatever you are stuck in, it can't be good for you.
The stats are something like 1 in 10 people experience domestic violence. Unless someone takes a vow of silence and goes to live in the wilderness there is no way to avoid awful people. They're just people. The average standard is not high. Although I suppose an argument could be made that wife-beaters are actually just evil rather than being low-empathy but I think the point is still clear enough.
Why that confirms that humans are in general not capable of being empathy is beyond me. My point still stands. You cant fix the whole world. BUT, you definitely can make sure you surround yourself with decent people, at least to a certain extend. I know the drill. I have a disability, and I had (and have) to deal with people treating me in a very inappropriate way. Patronisation, not being taken serious, you name it, I know it. But that still didn't make me the frustrated kind of person you seem to be. You have a choice. Just drop toxic people and you will see, most humans can be pretty decent.
One thing I don't hear people talking about very is about how AI is going to make money in any other way other than cutting employment. With the internet, and especially with the internet being accessible by anyone anywhere in the world in the late 2000s and early 2010s globally, that growth was more obvious to me. I don't see where this occurs with AI. I don't see room for "growth", I see room for cutting. We were a…
AI use cases do not appear to be of the type that unlock NEW capabilities.
The main use cases in AI are not about wealth creation but about saving existing wealth (largely through increased automation of human operators).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't heard a good argument for why AGI isn't already here. It has average humans beat and seems generally to be better-than-novice in any given field that requires intelligence. They play Go, they write music, they've read Shakespeare, they are better at empathy and conversation than most. What more are we asking AI to do? And can a normal human do it?
> they are better at empathy and conversation than most. Do you know actual people? Even literal sociopaths are a bit better at empathy than ChatGPT (I know because I have met a couple). And as for conversation? Are you serious? ChatGPT does not converse in a meaningful sense at all .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you prove that software development is a bubble? By looking at the software development market. How else would you do it? Salaries rose sharply from 2020-2023, but then plateaued and are now starting to decline. Slowly, however. It did not crash. It ticks the boxes: Rapid price appreciation, speculation, a disconnect from fundamentals, widespread media attention, and an eventual correction. > Stock prices ar…
1. the labour market has not much to do with whether it is a bubble or not 2. definition of bubble is that the market cap must precipitously reduce, which it hasn't.
How can the very market we're talking about not indicate whether there is a bubble in that market or not? Do you think we should be looking at the price of soybeans instead?
> definition of bubble is that the market cap must precipitously reduce, which it hasn't.
Incorrect. It has, just not by very much. Which isn't surprising as we already established that there wasn't a crash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I frequently work with Copilot and Claude Sonnet, and it can be useful, but trusting it to write code for anything moderately complicated is a bad idea This sentence and the rest of the post reads like an horoscope advice. Like "It can be good if you use it well, it may be bad if you don't". It's pretty much the same as saying a coin may land on head or on tail.
saying "a coin may land on head or on tail" is useful when other people are saying "we will soon have coins that always land on heads"