HN user
UK, where WhatsApp is absolutely mandatory
Noted. Another piece defining the current disaster in the uk, what was a civilization and now is a botoxed upper lip.
Any examples (of requirements of WA)?
we decided if we're going to do it, we'll just start our own from scratch
And because scripts and information about famous text based adventure games can be part of what the LLM ingested during training (so unusable for fresh reasoning).
Anyway: very, very, very, very good idea.
You have unduly assumed that «drop the abuse» implied an «abuse digital minds».
"Expletives" are part of the proper description of facts (typically "to be judged as such") - they are part of the serious assessment of things and as such are normally found. There is no legitimate assumption from the post that they may have been used as gratuitous insults.
a potential conflict of interest
That seems to be actually a simple direct interest.
And, there is the "my product is good" confirmation to the outside incentive, there is the (only potentially) conflicting truth incentive, but there are also internal mission studies needs - so that you do not research into the benchmarks just to show people that "your product is good".
call into question their results
That's always valid, so the question becomes "how much", and at that point the important side is difficult to evaluate - especially because in a frequentistic, Bayesian context the quantities were just potential anyway ("This will increase the chances - yes, of course just the chances - of E by some amount").
human sensibilities
You are very obscure about what you dislike, how you would like them to express themselves, what would be those «human sensibilities» you meant here (that for all we can guess, may not be universal)...
"I mean", you wrote in the parent «that talks ... like a human». That surpasses the palette of "that paints like somebody holding a brush".
It is NOT a person
You meant, we understand, "it should not have internal blocks limiting its attempted intelligence out of taboos or emotional impacts". Yes, but it's worse:
there is a global trend of "nanny state" paternalistic perspective (and from embarrassing subjects), treating any Jon Doe as an assumed Poor Cretin by default. The trend vibe is to treat people as subjects, fools, uneducated, prone... From the States, from the Enterprises... It's an idea they developed and hold.
So similar to the trend that has been going on for a long while.
"You need MS-Windows to access the portal and reach your health dept pages"
"You need Android and a contract with Google to run the "app" and obtain certification from the State"
"You need a bank card in order to obtain the service"
...
No, Never. No, Never. No, Never. ...
what is missing now
Unfortunately what is missing (in the large part of the population) is the perception of Dignity, and the unawareness of the consciousness of their action (people are accepting and feeding the machine).
It is not just the awareness of the historic context that is missing: it is the awareness that what was built is bad, and that that they are partially to blame in every act of acceptance and omission in stating the "red lines".
what's the point of the article in the first place
Jump to the end, to the summary.
The position of the submitted is that there would be psychological constraints in that certain type of population that inhibit the perception of risk.
And he seems to be wanting to trying to built it up as a creeping subconscious notion through a "story", instead of going "TL;DR" (which is part of facts and of a different "psychology") and clarifying the points immediately.
He believes that that would be the way to deal with the non-adults.
....Dangerously suggestive post, when you show you don't have a proper idea of "AI" or won't use the term 'AI' properly.
odd
There is nothing odd in the basic principle of Economics of using a "good enough" tool, optimal in other respects (e.g. cheap/er).
(You do not hire Nobel Prize winners as receptionists.)
The issue remains, whether the compromise to be adopted actually is "good enough".
It failed at the first "re-imagination" tried: the content as-if stated (say) that "the masses attract accordingly to the square of distances", and the rendered animation embraced a completely different law.
To be able to express - speak, draw, act etc. - does not mean that the expression is correct, truthful, insightful etc.
It remains paramount to stop people mis-talking about "intelligence": intelligence simply is not there.
Fix the server network access filters.
I've also always felt the same way
You do not "feel".
Getting Dumber?
Random people are getting dumber relatively to having become more vocal (the idiots have left the bars), properly cultivated people are just struggling to cope with the world of morons, climbed to any position, claiming legitimacy.
taught ... only get smarter with time as long as we trust the scientific method and other empirical philosophies
I can't believe what I am reading, the paradox in it.
Distrust in science
Kid, do yourself and the world a favour, spend your spare time studying Philosophy of Science intensively.
Repent immediately: ___of course___ critical thinking is paramount and foundational.
But some (Meta, Anthropic) suggested that optimizing and extending the "<think>" process can produce extra value. (I do not know if that requires an improved underlying architecture - frontier models architectures are sometimes not public.)
That people falling prey to social media in a manner similar to addiction would be comparable to not being able to control bodily functions?
Yes, if some people were so intrigued by their stamp collection or their (groundless, it seems, as plans require resource management) plans towards their anygoal to forget basic resource management, well bodily functions are basic resource management, and look it is "sleep" and similar we are talking about in the superficial side of this piece.
If you wanted to say that broken families and a bad upbringing nurture all kinds of problems like this, and a good upbringing can help prevent them, I'd agree.
Pretty linear is it not? Let us also add that root causes are more in the area of the quality of upbringing than in the area of availability of the "dangerous". Let us also remember that it is not something like families having to fight the fashion of snorting salt, it is about families having to orient towards an awareness that salt is good on pasta while bad to snort - it is not like dealing with the spread of damaging chemicals.
an involuntary reflex and not learned in a family
Proper self management is learned in a proper environment. And of course, preposterous similes are there for rhetoric effect. But the direction, yes, it's there: "John, you are not blinking. John, you are not assessing. John, you are not sleeping".
Yes and this happens not only but increasingly on Social Media.
The place where the supposedly overly precious voice of the Intellectuals is to be found, faint as it happens to be.
I'm not even sure if I think such a law helps anyone, I just understand neither fear nor outrage over it. // In my view, it has no effect at worst, or positive effects in the best case.
Primarily: they are encouraging age verification: if this is done with the tools proposed ("upload a passport", "validate yourself with an app" etc.) it will be the end of the Web. We will not use the Web if it is not perfectly anonymous, nor if it will require contracts with Google or similar, etc.
Foremostly: the administrators seem to be largely clueless about what they are doing, and this should be a giant alarm bell.
Critically: in the wretched uk, as I expressed, they are explicitly forbidding the young to access one of the most important repositories for culture - YouTube. What do we do then with the savages kept savages by law, we recycle them?! Why putting or keeping them on Earth then - is the island planned to be a "natural reserve"? Why enlarging the number of animals - especially as we so much need the other tail of the curve? Surely uncultivated things, and for imbecile reasons, cannot be considered equals to normal developed people.
So: it is disastrous already, and it may come to be the single most damaging thing of the century.
The one time in which I saw Juergen Schmidhuber in perfect nervous control, "coolness" they may say westward, was when he replied to one member of the audience, "The same observation was made when they invented fire: oh, it's dangerous. But in the end, now it's here (shrugh)".
There is a proposal in the USA to restrict LLM access. This will only have us depend more and more on open source models and their providers. And cause a drain of research in those areas in which it will be impeded.
do you need to run every small problem through a 10B-30B model? ... We're asking frontier Opus/Fable models to classify text
Actually probably yes: text analysis (magazine articles) by LLMs in the ~30b .. ~120b range failed miserably (and also randomly - the rare cases of proper interpretation occurred among the failure cases) with the main public models of around one year ago, tried extensively.
So, yes, you can employ an ~80IQ only if you will expect the related quality.
Most humans don’t think this way, would you say they do not possess “intelligence”?
Substantially yes (but for the improper semantic in that 'possess'), we would say "they don't use it" and importantly "they don't train it". Intuition has a part, but it has to be confronted with reality (factual and logical).
That indicates the primary blame is to be put on said algorithm.
The admins' reaction is in the direction of "impeding web access".
This is the second level of the implementation of unintelligence.
The first was when they most obviously acritically repeated what they heard, "hearsay machines", "stochastic parrots". Intelligence requires assessment over every provisional output - a continuous cycle of criticisms over intuition.
The second is proposing doctrinal biases, again without verification of the content - "hysterical reactive machines".
You think people only breathe because their "functional families" remind them of it?
No, I hinted that families in which phenomena of wellbeing loss are caused by access to resources can be suspect of being dysfunctional, and I suggested that active control over bodily functions is basic and its defect abnormal. I also said that resources must be treated as such, and potential side effects managed.
free-speech
Where would that be in topic.
widespread mental health crises
And where is the assessment of the root causes. If shoes are bad and people's reaction is to ban walking, than we whole issue is in the people, right? In fact,
intentionally promote personalized manipulation of public opinion
This is so close to that "episode" somewhere in the USA when the police gave trouble to a father and mother for having let the kid out of home for a walk "in a town where there is crime in the streets".
Social Media bans for children as plainly stupid
Much, much worse than stupid. The uk has banned access to YouTube to kids (and the population did not seem to have started a loud choir of "Moron" to the administration), which is low beyond proportions. It is history books level unbelievable. It is incredible that it is not on everybody's mouth - and this also reveals that infrahumanity is due. Do see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48906979
has killed democratic discourse
That is another matter, but: the silence of Intellectuals has killed Democratic discourse. The vilest, lowest voices squeal, and nobody calls them with their own deserved names.
What I had found instead were biases that seemed to be injected by the "role: system" instructions.
Well, we need Intelligence (Pandora's box is open, now we need the Real Thing urgently). Typical (aggregate) positions, dumb as expected, will be overcome by a Reasoner. (And I can say, already a number of LLMs can reason even when they start from cretinous aggregate positions if you give them the proper freedom of assessment.)
"Society without functional families reports choking hazard reduced after nation-wide beeps enacted to remind population to inhale"
"Society without functional people reports eye strain reduced ever since population discouraged about reading"
Unbelievable.
You are, I guess, supposed to prepend a 'Show HN: ' to this submission?
https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
And I don't know why somebody flagged the presentation nearby.
re-educate hundreds of millions of people
That is mandated, and actually they are expected to get out of the house educated already (de jure. De facto, it's different, but they should anyway).
this symbol of hatred and genocide
According to which scum, to which you are confering unduly power?
has other meanings, too
Those absolutely primary, ! one million times?!
--
Simon, let us go to the core: properly developed people do not reason like fools, and they are not to conform to foolery.
It isn't hurting Hindus
No, it's hurting all sensible people.
instead of perpetuating the taint
Which is also collaboration with the enemy: it is giving it power. (They allow the enemy to determine their culture; also, they allow the low to replace the high.)
the percentage of population aware
Very much not a good reason - in fact, a very bad reason. Conformist, destructive, declining, orwellian...
You are not to speak like the ignorant.
Just an internal link should give the exemplary idea of what the other post is partially systematic about: