27183

12 ms·

181.
by 27183 3mo ago
broken link maybe?
182.
by 27183 3mo ago
0. Pour money on the fire 1. AI somehow becomes AGI because money implies "emergence" I guess? 2. Profit somehow?
183.
by 27183 3mo ago
Yeah I've stepped on that face rake a few times. I still think it's a decent heuristic, don't see any reason to change.
184.
by 27183 3mo ago
> I'm sure it's my fault, somehow - but I'm a damn good writer; I just don't know how to communicate with people who won't put forth the effort to engage with detail. I used to put effort into those people. It wa
185.
by 27183 3mo ago
Another axis would be power consumption. Pretty sure if you want LLM training in 1980 you'd also need fusion power in 1980. And it would be very, very hard to hide the cooling apparatus of your datacenter. All that aside, it would also
186.
by 27183 3mo ago
> I think you've already conceded that LLMs demonstrate emergent behaviour No. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that an LLM compresses a bunch of information into a semantic embedding space and then does sort
187.
by 27183 3mo ago
I'm not following the "Fable" stuff, what is that? [edit: ah it's a new language model from Anthropic.. yeah still don't see how it's relevant here]
188.
by 27183 3mo ago
To say that LLMs' existence is evidence for emergent phenomena in LLMs is tautological. I'm merely suggesting if you want to make a claim about emergence it would be best, especially in absence of a convincing theory, to demonstra
189.
by 27183 3mo ago
I can't give you or your sibling a better answer than "you'll know it when you see it". Some people see it now. I think they're wrong, because it seems like the results you're describing are easily explained by
190.
by 27183 3mo ago
> there seems to be some emergent behaviour that is not simply just next-token-prediction, or that the ability to do accurate next-token-prediction requires something "extra" that LLMs have. The next step then would be to desig
191.
by 27183 3mo ago
To quote the great Dr. Malcolm: > Life, uh, finds a way.
192.
by 27183 3mo ago
I think we must be talking past eachother. I define stochastic search as a search process with randomness injected into it that can return the following things: - Something contained in the data set, not necessarily the same thing for every
193.
by 27183 3mo ago
> if you're claiming all LLMs simply do is a stochastic _search_, how can that produce novelty, in the conceptual sense? By reaching into the voids of its embedding space and returning tokens related to nonexistent semantics. Or, if
194.
by 27183 3mo ago
> Imagining something in advance is not necessary at all for scientific advancement. This is particularily true in AI, and no one expects to imagine what superintelligence is until after it is created. Then why does anyone expect to crea
195.
by 27183 3mo ago
> But what matters is the result- this machine, matrix multiplier, stochastic parrot, consistently displays intelligence, to the point of being able to perform very complex, open-ended tasks that integrate discovery, planning, tool usage
196.
by 27183 3mo ago
Yes I think the drug discovery analogy is apt. I've spent a bunch of time playing with evolutionary algorithms, they're great fun. And when they work they can do surprising things! [edit] I think the drug discovery analogy does ha
197.
by 27183 3mo ago
> Is an implication of this that models are incapable of producing entirely novel code? No, it does not imply that at all. Google "temperature in LLMs". > what do you posit is special about what is happening when humans thin
198.
by 27183 3mo ago
Fair enough, I should have phrased that less strongly. Until you show that your neural net does "thinking" or "reasoning" I'll disregard that and prefer to think about it in terms of what we actually know neural
199.
by 27183 3mo ago
> Where do you think intelligence comes from, some mysterious realm? It's physical, computational. Well, no. I don't think it comes from some mysterious realm. I think that which is not physical does not exist [edit: and if you
200.
by 27183 3mo ago
I'm not claiming there's something "extra" happening in brains. Merely that we just don't know how they work well enough to use that knowledge to do engineering. Neural nets are quite unlike brains, despite the unfo
201.
by 27183 3mo ago
I'd call it what it is: a good enough stochastic search result extracted from the model's embedding space.
202.
by 27183 3mo ago
> reading code, understanding, hypothesizing, comparing, ...identifying problems and proposing solutions, and more Except it did none of those things, really, because that's not how it works. This might help, it's a good writeu
203.
by 27183 3mo ago
I used the example of 1G constant acceleration space flight in another thread which got downvoted to oblivion, but I think it's a good one. That's a technology we know how to build. We just need superconducting electronics and min
204.
by 27183 3mo ago
The science of homeopathy tells us that if you dilute it a lot it makes the immunity more powerful.
205.
by 27183 3mo ago
> It’s serverless, local, and browser based. uhh what..
206.
by 27183 3mo ago
When I read commit messages and comments Claude makes a large fraction of the time they don't seem terribly related to the code, nor necessarily relevant to the problem at hand. The commits don't generally make a great deal of log
207.
by 27183 3mo ago
Subjective or not, there wasn't a single example of a "good" AI generated commit message or refactoring or whatever in the whole thing. If they're so good why not just show it? It's just weird. "My new car is m
208.
by 27183 3mo ago
> maybe they could ask Claude how to train themselves to resist bullets as well? Practice makes perfect!
209.
by 27183 3mo ago
> AI does this job better. Why do these posts always state things like this with maximum confidence and then not even make any attempt to show evidence? "I've got x years of experience trust me bro" is pretty weak.
210.
by 27183 3mo ago
It would be extremely valuable to be able to reliably identify this kind of behavioral tendency in an interview setting. Some kind of reliable test that screens for likelihood to go AI psychotic.

More ›