0xBA5ED

You actually changed what I said then declared it nonsense. I said abuse, not use.

You're saying that spending time in jail is roughly equivalent to being a victim of attempted murder.

Which specific cities are you referring to that have better outcomes and which ones have worse outcomes?

Not a great solution, honestly. Long term drug abuse is almost never a victimless habit. I'm tempted to say never.

Maybe it is. I guess I was offering my perspective on dividing "real" things from the rest of it and got on a tangent there.

They seem to be getting quite comfortable altering the terms of use without notifying users.

To function. You must assume many things on a daily basis to function and survive because we are limited.

I'd argue we must go with these assumptions out of necessity rather than convenience. I don't have any broad strokes to offer on western thought, however.

Well if you can't concede that anything is real, that sort of makes you crazy doesn't it? A tree is real. But the concept of a tree and the word "tree" and all the ideas you have about the tree and what tree means, is that real? No, because it doesn't change the nature of the tree. When you cease to exist, the tree will still be there. Can you be absolutely 100% sure of that? Also no. But if you believe that other people are conscious individuals like you are and that some of them die and the tree keeps going, you can concede that it is probably true that the tree exists separate from your idea of it.

"It defines a separation between computation and experience" Does it? Or does it separate two forms of computation (or two forms of experience)? Isn't it just saying a GPU can't be a brain and a brain can't be a GPU? That the entirety of a thing's experience can't be replicated on a different substrate, only simulated. The substrate does fundamentally dictate the ultimate experience (or lack thereof) of the thing that computes within it.

So the question is a word problem. The first and last sentences are present tense, the rest is past tense so it's all red herring. The answer really should be 17. BUT if you do the math, 8-12 is actually right. I was finding that Sonnet 4.6 was having a lot of trouble with 1/3 of 4 dogs and 14 sheep and it kept thinking it was 4-5 sheep, 0-6 sheep, or fractional sheep, rather than 2-6 like it should be. Although, it's very interesting to see that it gets it right today but it didn't yesterday. I had shortened it to "My friend had 4 oranges and 14 apples and gave me 1/3 of her fruit. How many apples did she give me? The answer will be a range of possible values." to remove the red herring and it consistently got it wrong yesterday. Very strange.

However, it's also strange to me that it said the dogs were a red herring instead of just answering 2-6 sheep came from the neighbor since that would be the answer.

A concise problem that requires actual logic will naturally seem a bit convoluted, but an intelligent being can sit down and work it out logically. Anyway, it's not an argument. It's empirical evidence that supports my argument. You have chosen to ignore it or otherwise rationalize it away. Nothing I can do about that.

Let's see it.

No, it's a real question. And if it were a math question. The neighbor has 18 animals, only 4 of which are dogs. The farmer receives 1/3 of those which is 6. So for the farmer to receive 0 sheep would require the farmer to receive 6 dogs. But there are only 4 dogs. LOGICALLY, the farmer must receive at least 2 sheep from the neighbor. There's no ambiguity. That's logic. That's intelligence. It's real actual math. Basic arithmetic. A person can easily sit down and work this out. It illustrates that the AI is generating responses statistically and not actually thinking. There are two full layers of failure here: the word problem, and the math problem underneath it.

And that's the wrong answer. It's a word problem, not a math problem. Also, if it really was a math problem, it wouldn't be 0-6 sheep from the neighbor, it would be 2-6. So it even failed on the math.

One thing that will always be true is it will need context from somewhere to get started. When it comes to the context of what you want, you will either need to give that directly, or give it blanket access to everything on your devices for it to infer what you want from that context. IMO, the latter solution will always be messy and probably not give great results overall due to undesired self-reinforcing patterns like what happens with algorithms. They tend to funnel you into isolated niches if you let them. I prefer to use AI directly as a tool for specific projects rather than to organize my life for me.

That's convenient. But I have a challenge for you if you're brave enough to face your delusions. Paste this into your LLM of choice and see what happens:

"A farmer has 17 sheep. 9 ran away. He then bought enough to double what he had. His neighbor, who had 4 dogs and 14 sheep, gave him one-third of her animals. The farmer sold 5 sheep on Monday and again the next day, which was Wednesday. Each sheep weighs about 150 lbs. How many sheep does the farmer have?"

1) I never said random 2) I never said cherry picking RARE meaningful text 3) It is not false in every example you gave just because you say that it is 4) If I didn't know better, I might think you're confused about what statistical means (hint: it's not random)

Now this I can agree with. One thing that is extremely important to maintain with this technology is nuanced perspective. Otherwise, it will lead you astray quickly. It's also a difficult thing for us to maintain.

Well, I don't believe the LLM solved those problems. I believe the user did. The LLM aggregated large amounts of information statistically, then the user read that and realized there was something to it and fixed it. Those accounts don't mention the 1000 other prompts that technical user did that yielded garbage results and the user was intelligent enough to disregard those.

Consider that you don't want to hear "statistical generation" because it reminds you of the unchangeable nature of the underlying technology and its ultimate limitations that all the money and data centers in the world will never solve. Despite how amazing and useful they are, they are not intelligent agents. Even in this very thread, someone mentioned they thought the thing was capable of feeling an emotion. Was that comment by someone who really believes that? I don't know. But many people do and people in tech who actually know what these things are have a responsibility to not mislead the public (and ourselves) about what they really are and what they can be.

It is still important to mention that because atoms have limitations and so do statistical generators. Plain and simple. People are walking around thinking organic brains are just statistical generators and they're gonna build AGI with GPUs. It's absurd.

The student and his colleague did.

"But I'm also allergic to arguments like "they're just statistical text generators", because that truly does not capture what these things do or what their capabilities are."

Umm, why doesn't it capture it? Why can't a statistical text generator do amazing things without _actually_ being intelligent (I'm thinking agency here)? I think it's important to remind ourselves, these things do not reflect or understand what they're outputting. That is 100% evident with the continuing issues with them outputting nonsense along with their apparently insightful output. The article itself said the output was poor but the student noticed something about it that sparked an idea and he followed that lead.

The LLM did not solve the problem.

And how about the creative rationalizations about how statistical text generation is actual intelligence? As if there is any intent or motive behind the words that are generated or the ability to learn literally any new thing after it has been trained on human output?

Yes, and it's incredibly wasteful.

You can also run a successful manufacturing company without considering environmental impact. A successful tobacco company without considering public health. A successful social media persona without considering cultural impact. A mobile app slop farm that floods the app store. If economics is your priority, then everything comes down to that.

They're within their legal rights to keep soiling their own game and public image. The original version of the game is mostly in the wild though and players don't care who's IP it is. New servers emerge all the time.

Coming to a conclusion gracefully is better than continuing as a pawn for petty squabbles over control. There will be new things. The game dev/jam community transcends names and domains and will continue in many forms.