81–90 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just a turn of phrase that means you got 100% beaten without challenge.
No, no it isn't. It's a very particular violent act designed to maximize ongoing physical pain and social disadvantage in the victim. Sort of like throwing sulfuric acid at someone's face.
What's a large language model doing when it's not being queried? Am I correct that they only compute information when dealing with a prompt? If so, that seems like a fundamental flaw. An actual "thinking machine" would be constantly running computations on its accumulated experience in order to improve its future output.
> What's a large language model doing when it's not being queried? Nothing. > Am I correct that they only compute information when dealing with a prompt? Yes. > If so, that seems like a fundamental flaw. Flawed in what way? It clearly doesn't need to be like us to be useful, because it's useful and definitely not like us. > An actual "thinking machine" would be constantly running computations on its accumulated exper…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious why you needed to inject the violent overtones in your comment, "curb stomped? We're building tools to help us augment our intelligence, I don't see anyone getting "curb stomped"? If intelligence leads to more violence, then I don't think it will be as useful as we'd have hoped.
It's just a turn of phrase that means you got 100% beaten without challenge.
> Study Deep Blue’s 1997 defeat of world chess champion Garry Kasparov, and your excitement about how quickly this technology would take over other cognitive work would wane as you learned just how much brute human force went into fine-tuning the software specifically to beat Kasparov. That was ~26 yeas ago. In the intervening 26 years humans have been curb-stomped so hard at chess that certain microwaves might be co…
Curious why you needed to inject the violent overtones in your comment, "curb stomped? We're building tools to help us augment our intelligence, I don't see anyone getting "curb stomped"? If intelligence leads to more violence, then I don't think it will be as useful as we'd have hoped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, no it isn't. It's a very particular violent act designed to maximize ongoing physical pain and social disadvantage in the victim. Sort of like throwing sulfuric acid at someone's face.
wait until you hear such idioms as "punched in the gut", "made a killing", etc.
This is the Real Deal, but not in away you would imagine. So far "nigerian email spam" was easy to recognize. Grammar mistakes, bad translation, very bad wording... But now every fringe group, can generate gigabytes of text and arguments that make sense! This is the end of debate, consensus and interactive communication, as we know it! Similar moment was in Africa in 1960, after they got AK45 and other cheap weapons.…
> So far "nigerian email spam" was easy to recognize. Grammar mistakes, bad translation, very bad wording... But now every fringe group, can generate gigabytes of text and arguments that make sense! "nigerian email spam" contains grammar mistakes, bad translation, vary bad wording... by design. To weed out those unlikely to end up sending money. I don't know how you can make an argument that makes sense about being c…
this theory is popular, but ignores the simple fact that mostly it weeds out the 90% of people whose email provider offers spam filters which are entirely uncorrelated with gullibility, as well as how low-risk, high reward email exchanges with the tiny fraction of people that bother to reply are to anonymous scammers in faraway low income countries.
I agree LLMs aren't that helpful though: the better scammers are able to generate leads even more easily through copy/pasting other people's classified ads or genuine business enquiries. And yes, having fooled a relatively smart person with someone else's prose into sincere interest in doing business with them, they then reply with poor English, unsettling disinterest in anything other than the money and repeatedly reassuring you it's safe, and a payment proposal that makes no sense (not as a filtering technique but because that's the best they can do). LLMs only solve the first bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just a turn of phrase that means you got 100% beaten without challenge.
No, no it isn't. It's a very particular violent act designed to maximize ongoing physical pain and social disadvantage in the victim. Sort of like throwing sulfuric acid at someone's face.
It's not combining an LLM with data/memory recollection and infinite agency that will lead to leaps in cognition. Complex systems still can do that and still not have self-awareness / cognition. We will need to take some more fundamental leaps to synthesize memory, agency and prediction to operate within a single system where self-awareness resides in the entity and not in the building blocks. LLM's represent a build…
A lot of the hopes in regard to AGI in LLMs seem to focus on just making the models bigger, or feeding them even more information. On the other hand, some researchers in the AGI space seem to move in a completely different direction, trying to use neural networks to simulate different parts of a brain, moving away from language altogether.
But what I'm wondering is this: might it be a more productive avenue to consider an LLM not as an entire mind, but as a single part of an hypothetical artifical psyche, which excels at some of the overarching tasks of consciousness (such as acting within a cultural context and epistemological framework), but can delegate other aspects to more fitting subsystems? Could it be combined with other networks optimized for different tasks? Potentially, this could just be done by having inputs from other parts of this artificial psyche fed in as prompts, translated by an encoder/decoder of the likes of CLIP, i.e. a decoder that can translate ideas between different liminal spaces.
The work that I keep remembering in this context is Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind [1], which I stumbled upon here on HN [2] [3]. Jaynes believes that consciousness is not an innate ability, but a cultural achievement - in order to become conscious, one first has to learn (through others) to conceptualize consciousness, and to think of oneself as a thinking being. He insists that consciousness is not a necessity for human agency, and that humanity has been building civilizations and using technologies long before humans discovered (or achieved) consciousness. Jaynes puts forward the idea of an ancient, non-conscious human mind based on, upon other things, "verbal hallucinations" - thoughts and memories that involuntarily enter as associations, but whose origins are interpreted by the mind to not be within itself, but somewhere outside of it, such as in a divine monologue; thought, to the pre-conscious mind, is the incessant blabbering of the Gods.
It seems that LLMs would excel in the role of this "camera" of the mind - as the source of divine monologue and divine instructions, that can then be compared with memories, interpreted and executed by more specialized subsystems. Might it be feasible to give up the plan to make AGI self-aware altogether and instead build an AGI powered by a GPT-4 ascended to divinity, just as ignorant of its own existence as ever?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
Am I misreading this? > How tall was the president when JFK was born? I infer that "JFK" is being referred to as "the president", regardless of what stage of life he's at. Therefore the correct answer would be the length of his body as a newborn, with nothing to do with who was the president at the moment of his birth. For example, given the headline: "Was the president strong at writing essays when JFK was a high sc…