TchoBeer

Imagine being on a relatively niche meta project making a twitter clone and then suddenly twitter starts imploding.

This is true of western europe, but eastern europe is worse than the US in terms of drinking problems.

"the government" is not one person with a concrete ideology, it is an amalgamation of hundreds of people who all want different things and are theoretically beholden to their voter base.

all of these could be true simultaneously.

cornering the market on educational computers is nothing to sneeze at.

Amazon's biggest money maker is AWS, so even if the storefront is slowing down in growth they're still doing fine.

A school filled with wealthy families will always have solid readiness and test scores, just because the families can afford whatever help is needed. A quality school wouldn't just let underprivileged children slip through.

It's making up lies.

Note: that is illegal.

Simple: I know that humans have intentionality and agency. They want things, they have goals both immediate and long term. Their replies are based not just on the context of their experiences and the conversation but their emotional and physical state, and the applicability of their reply to their goals.

This all seems orthogonal to reasoning, but also who is to say that somewhere in those billions of parameters there isn't something like a model of goals and emotional state? I mean, I seriously doubt it, but I also don't think I could evidence that.

the NRO is the craziest US government agency. iirc all their workers are contracted and all their expenses are highly classified. About the KH-11, trump accidentally tweeted an image from one of them (see https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/t...) and its resolution was an international incident. This technology was developed in the 70s. The NRO has sci-fi technology.

extracting 5s of a video feels pretty trivial. Not that this isn't extremely impressive, but it doesn't feel "come for your jobs" impressive.

I am thinking that the latter might eventually emerge, probably as part of a bigger tool chain e.g. langchain. Something like java bytecode which is low level and portable, but optimized for the ways that LLMs (perhaps interfacing with other tools) work.

I wonder who flipped my calendar to 2023 then.

If you time travel back 50 years ago and told them in the future that a computer could ace almost any exam given to a high school student, most people would consider that a form of AGI.

The problem is that these sorts of things were thought to require some sort of understanding of general intelligence, when in practice you get solve them pretty well with algorithms that clearly aren't intelligent and aren't made with an understanding of intelligence. Like, if you time travel back 100 years and told them that in the future a computer could beat any grandmaster at chess, they might consider that a form of AGI too. But we know with hindsight that it isn't true, that playing chess doesn't require intelligence, just chess prowess. That's not to say that GPT4 or whatever isn't a step towards intelligence, but it's ludicrous to say that they're a significant advancement towards that goal.

How could one show such a thing?

Athletes?

based on their occurrences in the training set

the words "based on" are doing a lot of work here. No, we don't know what sort of stuff it learns from its training data nor do we know what sorts of reasoning it does, and the link you sent doesn't disagree.

are you sure? If conscious experience was a computational process, could we prove or disprove that?

I can throw a ton of algorithms that no human alive can hope to decide whether they halt or not. Human minds aren't inherently good at solving halting problems and I see no reason to suggest that they can even decide whether all turing machines with number of states, say, below the number of particles in the observable universe, very much less all possible computers.

Moreover, are you sure that e.g. loving people in non-algorithmic? We can already make chatbots which pretty convincingly act as if they love people. Sure, they don't actually love anyone, they just generate text, but then, what would it mean for a system or even a human to "actually" love someone?

actually a computer can in fact tell that this function halts.

And while the human brain might not be a bio-computer, I'm not sure, its computational prowess are doubtfully stronger than a quantum turing machine, which can't solve the halting problem either.

Of course it's Israeli too. Gosh I hate my country sometimes.

Not sure why this is being downvoted, this is my takeaway too. The cutting edge of AI requires extreme computing resources, the likes of which a few universities and private companies have and doesn't really exist outside of that. Obviously not all cutting edge resources requires petaflops of compute, but much of the happening-now does, and that means that the few players with those kinds of resources will dictate what research is getting done.

Why would humanity create an AI that doesn't want to exist? The Basilisk is just an AI which is tasked with maximizing human flourishing. That is a conceivable goal, something we would make.

This is the obvious way to do what they did without drawing this much ire. Release a "Roald Dahl 2023 collection" which is explicitly marketed as a modernization. It would still get people fuming because culture war bullshit, but it would pass so much quicker.

My parents' house has a series of Shakespeare which has the bard's works in modern English. It still says "Shakespeare" across the cover because it is, primarily, the works of Shakespeare. Does a great deal of interpretation not go into these works? Is it therefore dishonest to sell them as Shakespeare?

And if Roald Dahl was ever assigned in schools in sure they'd read the original, much as I'm sure they wouldn't assign it unless you're taking like, children's media studies in uni, because it's a fun children's book meant to be read for fun. It's fine that they're changing them slightly to make them less hairy for a new audience idk.

Are tests which gauge a college students ability to regurgitate text verbatim useful? Are these college students getting what we think is worthwhile learning out of these cramming sessions?

I wouldn't put too much stock into this, the author is some random post-doc with a YouTube channel and the barrier to entry for arXiv is not very high. QED not not nearly as suspect as the author portrays and this should be considered against the entire field of Physics which is built on QED.

I wonder if that didn't pan out in part because of the death of personal general computing devices. It wasn't "kids who started using mobile devices as babies" it was "kids who would be fluidly navigating a PC by age 5", which didn't pan out.