HN user
I'm, just taking a guess here, I don't have any prompts on had, but imagine that ChatGPT is pretty "woke" (fk I hate that term).
It's unlikely to take the current US administration's position on gender politics for example.
Bias is inherent in these kinds of systems.
Yep, it's the outline around text that won you the client.
Stretching the timeline to 30 years doesn't make the achievement any less impressive.
Why do some people gloat about moving goalposts around?
15 years ago self driving of any sort was pure fantasy, yet here we are.
They'll release a version that can drive in poor weather and you'll complain that it can't drive in a tornado.
In a world where openAI exists, it really does require an almost breathtaking lack of imagination to be a skeptic.
This is the polar opposite of BotW’s design thesis and I hate you for tainting it.
LOL, calm down mate. Fwiw, I've read your back and forth with the GP and I'm much more excited with their vision than yours.
Anyone with any imagination can see that LLMs are the future of story telling.
You can rage all you want, but progress will march on without you.
All it's doing is noticing that makes no sense and saying so. How could it not recognize it?
you say that like it's the simplest thing in the world. it really amazes me how quickly people acclimate to this mind-blowing tech.
This will come from the capitalist system, businesses will be driving the obsolescence of humans,
what's the point of owning the factories if there is no one to buy the crap you produce? they need us more than we need them, at least until they have their own spaceships with AI and robots to fluff their balls for them.
Why is consciousness computation?
if there is no duality, then what else can it be?
there are entire philosophical movements that have developed fascinating accounts of consciousness that are far from strict materialism
philosophers can bloviate all day. meanwhile the computer nerds built a machine that can engage in creative conversation, pass physician and bar exams, create art, music and code.
I'm not saying there's nothing to learn from philosophy, but gee you have to admit that philosophers come up a little short wrt practical applications of their "Philosophical Investigations"
people generally get tired of life because their body is failing. I'm sure you could find exceptions where people were just ... bored ... and ready to die, but this would be the extreme minority.
There's a finite amount of ... experiences
I very much doubt that is the case in anything but the most pedantic, philosophical sense.
changing the control scheme
Controllers use analog input for the sticks. I guess you could create a system which uses a dead zone where the player "signals" their intention by partially moving the stick in their desired direction.
This would be incredibly cumbersome though, and the payoff would not be worth it.
I guess the problem there is pretty fundamental
yes absolutely, you can't have both realism and snappy response times.
It's always a tradeoff between responsive movement and realistic movement. RDR2 has very realistic animations, with the tradeoff being slightly "floaty" controls.
Personally I prefer snappy movement i.e. when I press left the screen character moves left immediately. A more realistic looking animation system introduces a delay while you wait for the feet animation to "catch up" to player input.
lol, what a fantastically obscure game to choose!
could AI generated music ever replace Rancid or Junior Kimbrough or Fela Kuti?
AI is ok, but it will never ....
until it does, and then the goalposts will move.
the only logical endgame that I can see is AI replacing all human endeavour (creative, technical, physical, mental).
There will eventually be philosophers trying to make sense of the profound understandings coming from machines.
the answer to the second is trivially Yes, regardless of the value of X
then don't do it?
suburbs are probably the worst of both worlds
hit the nail on the head right there.
that's a lot of what ifs.
we don't live in the 50s any more. My wife and I were living together for 8 years before we got married. That sure would have been one doozy of a long con if she turned around and suddenly became a totally different person once the ink dried on the marriage certificate.
Picking the right person is not the same as buying a lottery ticket, lol.
ehh, it's a choice to buy into any of that bullshit.
we eloped $3,000km away to the tropics to get married. it was more of a holiday with a wedding day thrown in. we loosely, no expectations, invited a few friends and family and were pleasantly surprised to find 30 people met us there.
The whole thing, holiday and all cost us around $10k and was a total blast.
I found the traditional wedding day routine to be super claustrophobic and rigid.
No need to risk half of my current assets and future income
life is risk. marriage is a great way to de-risk many aspects of your life. 2x income for only 1.3x increased expenses. Easier debt/mortgage access. Support (financial/emotional) in case of illness or income loss.
other person, who probably doesn't like me very much anyways
Marrying the right person is the key (hanging out with your best friend forever is cool), and that for sure is risky/not easy.
That's one data point that I have observed.
As with many things genetics plays a big part.
I neglected going to the dentist for 15 years and take just ok care of my teeth (brush at least once per day, don't floss).
I was expecting bad news, lots of cavities, but my teeth are perfect. After some plaque removal, not a single cavity.
Asked the dentist about this, he shrugged and just said "genetics".
that's pedantic. switch 2 years to 5 years and the point still stands.
They're still terrible at logical reasoning.
2 years ago a machine that understands natural language and is capable of any arbitrary, free-form logic or problem solving was pure science fiction. I'm baffled by this kind of dismissal tbh.
but LLMs are never going to go into a recursive loop of self-improvement
never is a long time.
I often wonder if the filter, is more to hide its true capabilities.
right now we're all sharing a slice of GPT. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's some uber GPT (which requires a lot more processing per response) running in a lab somewhere that blows what's publicly available out of the water.
Maybe it'll turn out to be a distinction that doesn't matter but I personally still think we're a ways away from an actual AGI.
if you had described GPT to me 2 years ago I would have said no way, we're still a long way away from a machine that can fluidly and naturally converse in natural language and perform arbitrary logic and problem solving, and yet here we are.
I very much doubt that in 5 years time we'll be talking about how GPT peaked in 2023.
Could you really be confident you understood how it worked by just running experiments on it as a black box
the human brain is a black box, we can certainly learn a lot about it by prodding and poking it.
Things look like magic especially when you can’t look under the hood.
imagine we had a 100% complete understanding of the mechanical/chemical/electrical functioning of the human brain. Would knowing the magic make it any less magical? in some sense, yes (the mystique would be gone, bye bye dualism), but in a practical sense, not really. It's still an astonishingly useful piece of grey matter.
What the paper actually shows is that even intelligent people have a bias towards perceiving patterns in randomness
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but...
you'd have to provide a more rigorous rebuttal to be taken seriously.
AGI can exist without sapience and intelligence is a continuum. you can't just hand wave away GPT's capabilities which is why the sharpest minds on the planet are poking this new machine to work out wtf is going on.
human intelligence is a black box. we judge it by its outputs from given inputs. GPT is already producing human-like outputs.
a common rebuttal is: "but it doesn't *really* think/understand/feel", to which my response is: ...and? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ what does that even mean?
one of the best comments I've read on this topic. you got me with your prompt injection :)
But, as of right now, LLMs can't generate new knowledge
my bar for tech singularity is an AI that can clean a toilet.
GPT's language model is already sophisticated enough to "understand" this instruction. It's missing spatial understanding and a way to interact with the real world, but I'd be honestly very surprised if there isn't a GPT or equivalent already hooked up to cameras/motors/actuators in a lab somewhere.
within our lifetimes we'll be reading papers with titles like: "does my roomba have feelings?"
But it can’t make novel discoveries like humans.
in my 42 years on this planet I don't think i've made any novel discoveries.