kosh2

Way before that it will become political. Regulation is the only true threat left anyways.

Windows terminal

This is like saying quantum mechanics is really simple to understand, all you have to do is find the right formula and plug in the numbers.

When people talk about understanding, they mean as knowing how the underlying mechanism works often by finding an analog in real life.

There is no separation of code and data on the wire - everything is a stream of bytes. There isn't one in electronics either - everything is signals going down the wires.

Would two wires actually solve anything or do you run into the problem again when you converge the two wires into one to apply code to the data?

As long as LLMs have no true memory, this is expected. Think about the movie Memento. That is the experience for an LLM.

What could any human do with a context window of 10 minutes and no other memory? You could write yourself notes… but you might not see them because soon you won’t know they are there. So maybe tattoo them on your body…

You could likely do a lot of things. Just follow a recipe and cook. Drive to work. But could you drive to the hardware store and get some stuff you need to build that ikea furniture? Might be too much context.

I think solving memory is solving agi.

Black holes have the same mass and information as the stars that formed them.

Unless the theory also breaks mass and information conservation, the star that gave birth to our black hole must have been as massive as our entire universe.

I doubt we have any theory how a star that size can have formed.

I have two problems / questions with this:

1. This theory requires a parent universe that can't have been formed inside a black hole. This means there must a be second "universe creation" mechanism that we can / may never know about from our child universe. For me, this doesn't really answer the true question: "How did our universe begin?" Yeah, it may the "unknown field with strange properties" but instead we get an unknown parent universe with strange properties.

2. The black hole in the parent universe must be much much bigger than anything we see in ours since it has to contain all the matter that we see. How is a black hole supposed to form that is 750 billion times bigger than the largest black hole we know about?

How much energy does it cost for a human to generate an image?

I agree with many posters in here, that the cause will likely be bad data one way or another. Maybe we need to take a step back and only use data, that are almost 100% accurate.

Like the time of death after the data was collected.

If a model could with a high accuracy predict, that a patient will die within X days (without proper treatment), it will be already very valuable.

Second, as Sora has shown, going multi model can have amazing benefits.

Get a breath analysis of the patient, get a video, get a sound recording, get an MRI, get a CT, get a full blood sample and then let the model do its pattern finding magic.

because others know that you have it.

Except that cyber weapons like these are

1. One time use 2. Expire upon detection (mostly)

I think this is simply just a tool for offensive action only.

This is not something that is only a thing within google. Similar things are happening in a lot of companies and even public institutions like schools, universities and public media networks like the BBC.

It's Doctor who traveling to medieval Britain and showing a level of diversity that we see today. Or black Cleopatra. Or black Vikings. The list goes on and on.

In this case, they were overdoing it and so they will turn it down but I doubt they will "turn it off". Of course, the people who are doing it, will never acknowledge it and gaslight anybody who points it out as weird right wing conspiracy nut, but in cases like this, you can see it happening in a very obvious way.

That is not my point. Even if we had a model that could portray reality as objective as possible, a lot of people wouldn't like that and be actually offended by it.

This has also been going on a lot in the "representation" discourse.

A bohemian village 500 years ago would have been 100% white in almost all circumstances. Surgents would be male. Telephone scammers Indian and so on.

But in many ways, simply showing reality is not only not wanted but even offensive. What has to be shown is an idealized version of reality that we want to achieve and that is "more diversity". And what is maximum diversity? Zero white people.

If you trained a model purely on past history, it would see a 1:1 correlation between "US President" and "man" and decide that women cannot be President.

Why would you think that? You and me also know the history but also realize that a woman can be president.

Why would it accept black then?

If you look at attempts to actively rewrite history, they have to because a hypothetical model trained only on facts would produce results that they won't like

The geofencing part was a bit insane. All plausible deniability goes out of the window right there.

Maybe simply a larger task?

"Write 10 popular mini games"

--> What are those games? 1. Agent --> How does each of them work? 2. Agent --> Write each of those. Agent 3-13

It happens but it is rare. Given the COVID outbreak, it is definitely circumstancial evidence.

Agreed. It would be great if it could ask questions about missing context but maybe language models are bad for that task. Maybe one needs a second run, evaluate the answer and then make it look for info that could improve the answer.

Self-driving cars are much more difficult than one might think because the AI has to interface with the real world, something that humans have evolved for over millions of years.

Like others have said, worry more about every job that primarily interfaces with a computer.

Well, there's one thing that humans are much better than robots for the forseeable future: Energy efficiency. Try building a robot that contains a general purpose AI and the motoric functions and sense as humans that runs on the energy of three meals.

Now of course humans want and need more than just 3 meals but still pretty good.

But if most of your work consist of interfacing with computers, you might be in trouble.

It is true but then again, we constantly ajust the trust in sources based on what works and what doesn't.

If I watch a youtube tutorial teaching me how to bake pizza and it comes out totally wrong and a watch another that produces exelent pizza, I disregard the first channel.

And there are many more ways where humans check the reputation of sources automatically.

GPT currently lacks this possibility.

I'm constantly amazed that most discussions on technical forums center around what ChatGPT can't do and why it can't replace X and how often it produced nonsense.

Yes, it's true. But then again, if it didn't make mistakes anymore, we would have created a general porpuse solution machine working with all of human knowledge.

"We've created a plane that can fly 10 km!"

"Meh, 10 km is not that useful. Also, it's still expensive"

20 year ago, even current ChatGPT would be straight up science fiction. We are getting to a point where we develop tools that are unlike any other in their power to solve problems for us. And development will likely only get more intense on that front. These systems made quite a splash recently so there will be even more money going into it. Custom hardware for AI systems is being advanced all the time and every large software company wants AI developers.

I'm amazed that we don't think about how we are going to handle this. There are a lot of areas where the next gen (or the one after etc.) ChatGPT might have dramatic consequences both good and bad.

I switched over a few years ago as well but for some reason forgot to delete my old account. Sigh :(

I never reuse passwords of course but it's still annoying having to go through everything and change a whole bunch of passwords.

Seems to me that this could happen just as well with allowlist and blocklist

The only thing that can maybe be understandable for us is an infinite universe. What was before 0? -1. What before that? -2.

But how can we ever understand how out of a state of nothingness came something? That is where the science "ends" and the door to philosophy opens.

Those are similar problems like "Why is there not nothing?", "Why are the laws of nature not different?" etc.

You can exchange "We will never know" for anything that we currently think of as impossible then.

If I type a new marketing relevant keyword into google, I will get a perfect add for that in 5 minutes watching youtube.

Influencers are some of the most popular people on the planet for young people.

In my personal browsing experience, I don't think that I can't find human generated content anymore. Of course it is a problem, but so is e-mail spam, which largely is under control.

AI getting more sophisticated and putting people out of work is another problem because that would imply that the AI is better than the human creators and therefore desired and therefore not spam. That wouldn't be a problem of the internet though.

What I feel is more immediate is the ever increasing "sameness" of the internet. 99% of sites are either a news-site, blog, reddit, the socials and wikipedia.org. And within each category, everything blurs because of how similar it all has become.

I got the best stuff ever for you: In depth chess videos. I once had bought a chess game (not sure if it was the chess master series) and it contained a whole bunch of annotated games by a GM.

It was interesting but also tired my brain so quickly, that it was the best sleep tool ever.

Also Sabine Hossenfelder. She sometimes does non-physics topics but it's mostly physics

https://www.youtube.com/c/SabineHossenfelder/videos