7 ms·

> Nyet. Read the links I gave you. Our task is selection from the choices the machine generates. That's how you build an intelligence amplifier. The machines ar

> Nyet. Read the links I gave you. Our task is selection from the choices the machine generates. That's how you build an intelligence amplifier. The machines are capable of arbitrary precision. I'm already familiar with the Engelbart paper, but this is what people have already been doing with Google; with copy-paste from Stack Overflow. More often than not, all of the generated choices are either partially or wholly incorrect, and in need of either a cross-breeding or a euthanization. In this respect, LLMs are no different from the answer generators which preceded them. Only the priesthood of RTFM knows what to breed, what to gene-edit, and what to put down.

carapace 3y ago
> I'm already familiar with the Engelbart paper Excellent! I hope I didn't come off too patronizing? It's hard to argue this point (that the machines will rapidly become empirical, aka scientists) because I don't know how it will happen, it's more than a gut feeling, but less than an equation or a working example. I'm certain it will, but less certain how swiftly. In a sense, I'm trying to get out ahead of things to the extent that's even possible. FWIW, I would bet the inflection point comes within five years, the computers become automatic scientists, the options they generate will all be non-hallucinatory, and the only job left for us is "be human".