chki

Also: "Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration"

Is this a test to see whether people actually read the article? Because this is just copy-pasting the first paragraph.

Edit: Looking at the comment history this is a spam account that constantly posts random snippets from the articles without any other indication.

You're talking about an optimization strategy that's a few hundred thousand years old though. (And might not even be an optimization strategy at all) Its applicability to modern life seems highly dubious considering the massive cultural changes we have been going through.

Nothing is as boring as other people's dreams – unless you are part of their dream, then they become really interesting.

Although that's not really a good argument: (1) we don't know a lot about anything outside our solar system and (2) if this has happened a second time on earth it would be impossible for us to know since that thing would most likely have been destroyed by one of the first generation organisms.

Volkswagen just announced their next generation electric car that will be similar to the normal Golf/Polo and cost under 25k€ (which would be quite normal for an ICE car like this). I would be positive that the cost will go down significantly (and yes even taking into account that batteries might be exchanged to provide a functioning market for used-cars).

We don't learn by gradient descent, but rather by experiencing an environment in which we perform actions and learn what effects they have.

I'm not sure whether that's really all that different. Weights in the neural network are created by "experiencing an environment" (the text of the internet) as well. It is true that there is no try and error.

We are not limited to text input: we have 5+ senses.

GPT-4 does accept images as input. Whisper can turn speech into text. This seems like something where the models are already catching up. They (might)for now internally translate everything into text, but that doesn't really seem like a fundamental difference to me.

We can output a lot more than words: we can output turning a screw, throwing a punch, walking, crying, singing, and more. Also, the words we do utter, we can utter them with lots of additional meaning coming from the tone of voice and body language.

AI models do already output movement (Boston dynamics, self driving cars), write songs, convert text to speech, insert emojis into conversation. Granted, these are not the same model but glueing things together at some point seems feasible to me as a layperson.

We have innate curiosity, survival instincts and social instincts which, like our pain and pleasure, are driven by gene survival.

That seems like one of the easier problems to solve for an LLM – and in a way you might argue it is already solved – just hardcode some things in there (for the LLM at the moment those are the ethical boundaries for example).

What is it about humans that makes you think we are more than a large LLM?

Thanks for the added explanation! German is my mother tongue as well and I also think "Bei diesem Bild habe ich mir nichts gedacht" is very elegant and basically not translatable.

Firstly, I like this project and the art itself. As others have said this is not a new thing in art but I think the presentation, the stamp and everything are quite nice.

Now secondly, obviously the premise is also completely untrue and almost impossible to achieve: The artist did have something in mind when painting these pictures: to paint pictures where only the viewer is meant to decipher the meaning while the artist themself has nothing in mind. He or she also did paint something aesthetically pleasing so there seems to be a lot of intention on that part as well. Painting something without any intention at all seems almost completely impossible to me. (Maybe you could trick somebody else into painting something without them knowing about it – but even then you are still the artist with an intention).

Finally I wanted to address the criticism by some other comments that art critique and galleries are always looking for an artistic intention even if there is none. I don't think that's completely true – I have seen plenty of exhibitions where it is explained that the artist "was just experimenting with form/colors".

"Really understanding the issues" might just mean "deeper neural networks and more input data" for the AI though. If you are already conceding that AI has the same capabilities as most humans your own intelligence will be reached next with a high amount of probability.

I understand almost nothing of the technology behind ChatGPT but even to me it seems obvious that a model designed for natural language processing should not be very good at simple calculation with large numbers – something which is never done in natural language.

It enables action. Knowledge is not pointless but it is not the end goal. An education is not pointless but it is meant to lead to some action afterwards like designing a house after studying architecture. That action might even be creating more knowledge (both by researching and teaching), if you are thinking about a career in academia.

I'm actually not sure whether I fully agree, I think that knowledge can also be a goal in and of itself sometimes.

Interesting. I have heard about this famous speech many times but I have never made the connection to the pastry "Berliner" (or heard anyone mention this association).

Also, as a native German speaker, saying "Ich bin ein Berliner" is not unusual if you are talking about being a citizen of Berlin.

I don't think that was a common association at the time as well. Especially since (pastry) "Berliners" are not called "Berliners" in Berlin but "Pfannkuchen" instead.

Of the 78 studies that this Cochrane report looks at only 2 were studying COVID-19.

In some (online) newspapers it's not uncommon for headlines to be just an interesting quote from the article and not the actual topic of the article. It's somewhat clickbaity and comes from the fact that the headlines are written by different people than the articles.

Hacker news comments would not be a good replacement, though.

Why is complexity interesting if there are no humans to observe it?

But why? Why are algae better than rocks and ants better than algae if you take humans out of the equation?

A laugh track on top of the original laughs (the whole set was filmed in front of a live studio audience)? The audience laughter is an important part of the show, with the person having the most prominent audience laughter being interviewed about her experience 50 years later ("Today I'm rather embarrassed about my laughing" https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/menschen/dinner-for...)

I think it's reasonable to assume that ChatGPT has politically similar viewpoints to those that made the fine-tuning and those are (in general) well-educated people living in California who hold (in general) more left leaning and libertarian views. I could also imagine that the internet text corpus as a whole is somewhat left-leaning (for example, older people are more conservative and use the internet somewhat less frequently).

However, regarding this specific chart, it's important to note that the translation from asking questions into answering "strongly agree", "agree" etc. can be heavily biased. Also, tuning these compasses can be difficult. Just some things to keep in mind, political viewpoints are not hard science and colorful charts don't force them into being quantifiable.

I like the small details, for example that the "pause" button doesn't immediately paus the music but it's (sort of) a very quick fade out instead. Actually, I would love to have that for normal music apps as well, normal pausing always seems so abrupt to me.

Actually it was the other way around. The Sun King himself typed the three magic letters after banning the account https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603160241352462336 which probably led someone scrambling to update the policy.

That's strange. I'm reading policito.eu for quite some time and they are definitely one of the top channels for receiving EU related news and also focus very much on EU news. (Which makes sense, since they also have politico.com for US-related news)

There are many differences but first and foremost: the purpose of human zoos was entertainment, in this case it was to protect (and potentially scientific enquiry)

People whose loved ones are in pain tend to use different, even more colorful, language.

The human experience varies wildly and I would not make such assumptions. Caring for somebody without the hope of improvement for years can make you bitter or even resent the person that no longer resembles the one you loved.

I think a more generous reading of the comment you are replying to could be (and probably is reasonable): It is hard to pay a lot of money for somebody that is living in agony with no chance of getting better, where death might be a good option for them personally. I would not understand the comment to criticize supporting people living in relative comfort.

The hallucinations stopped happening as soon as I was moved to a normal patient room for the rest of my recovery

To be fair (and this is also true for the article itself), it might be difficult to distinguish cause and effect here. Being moved into less intensive care means that you are more stable which might lead to other issues becoming better in the following days regardless of whether you are in the ICU or not.

a good chance to be out in 2033

Source needed. From what I've read he will probably never be free, which makes sense since he is actively dangerous.

I wholeheartedly disagree. People can change and people do change. People can receive therapy. I was a very different person 5 years ago. I can't imagine how I will change in the next 20.