Jerrrrrrry

19 ms·

61.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
The insult was my inference that we should assume good faith, and that you had not done so (provably, by your 'lulz' snark); which you clearly did not show when assuming something other than the "liver" would be a organ
62.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
>Sometimes I feel guilty that I’m not as directly passionate about the product itself as I should be, and am more passionate about the people and company and the journey it’s on. That's because you are a human, that built a
63.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Biology is just too vast of the Gap (difficulty) for our own exellence/smart people to be incentived to jump. Every "discovery" is merely reduced to a classification, which can reduce one's accomplishments - when every q
64.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
nope, just demonstrated my point further-er-er: neither of us had the incentive to either acknowledge our edits nor call the other out, nor face the (perceived, social, higher-order) dissonance of being slightly unclear or "wrong"
65.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
>>> ...for cannibalizing to be a positive-selective-trait, the species would had either adapted to eating the liver - the "resilience/filter" of a system, ... >I have no idea what you meant by liver. Maybe
66.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Morality is cowardice in disguise.
67.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
no officer
68.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Begging the question all the while Q.E.D. Have currencies been a "net" benefit?
69.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
"Constrained writing" is literally the thing these LLM's are good at. The Great Gatsby is pitiful in comparison to the output any prompt anyone reading this can obtain within seconds. Not to diminish, it is fun as fuck, but a
70.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Thank you, this made a difference (and thanks noem for the book recc)
71.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Using the immune system as an analogy as another complexity layer of adversarial <-> learning/adaptation in relation to the context of both complexity theory / machine learning is tempting but almost is too easy. Plus the im
72.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
>However, liver eating is a moot point regardless, because evolutionary theory would suggest eating toxins would have a bad taste/smell, so that organ would simply be avoided, while eating the rest. So it has no bearing on whet
73.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
yes, Q.E.D; the ambiguity of our lingua franca can be an "accumulate toxin" of sorts when trying to articulate higher-order ideas, as words (especially used as analogies) can carry implicit deprecated weight, and without the resil
74.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
>reserving them for cooperation or something like slavery happens, but it's a rare strategy specific to intelligent animals Exactly, GP thinks this is a higher order behavior. I should had clarified, this is lower, more intu
75.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Liver/kidneys are organs where toxins are filtered, from the prey the predator consumes. I am not a biologist obviously. Because of the "food chain" actually being a pyramid, those organs contain the same "toxins" t
76.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
We just uh, do business, yanno?
77.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
More like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
78.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
You are correct and for this: you are not going to be rewarded for it. The cognitive dissonance is too strong, this entire subject should honestly be banned from HN.
79.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
>I say cannibalized, because avoiding eating your own species is a higher brain function that would've came far later, Two convergent intuitions as to why this is true, but for the wrong reasons: Species (maybe only [di?]mo
80.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Artifacts of evolution such as tribalism/xenophobia are the most obvious examples/analogs. But really, and "slightly" varied instance of yourself is the "most" likely to compete for the same, infinite pool of r
81.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
We agree. We just aren't allowed to not agree; when both national security and the continuity of our species is in the math, the infinities divide by zero.
82.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
> So essentially, you can store more 'ideas' in an LLM than there are particles in the universe. I think we'll be good. If it can compress humanities knowledge corpus to <80gb unquanti-optimized, I think betwee
83.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
That is a reductio ad absurdum... but unforuntately true. Any participation in the economy (in?)directly contributes to the MIC, SV, and other giga-corp that are constantly engaged in the arms race to create something we know we shouldn&#x2
84.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
>This can seem farcical at times. Sometimes the knowledge-management world can seem like a manifestation of OCD or perfectionism. >But to be clear, I don't want to discount in any way that such approaches could work for m
85.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
>> it has all the data, all it needs now is more power. >Next up: release the hypo-drones for a new era of trust. People have replaced their psychiatrists with these agents. The sense of (possibly 'mal'-aligned)
86.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
it has all the data, all it needs now is more power. we project it has plateaued for data logarithmic-ally, but shows promise when given more raw power/CPU to generate/select for mesa-meta-cognitive optimizing abilities. I hope it
87.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
The incentives align for everyone to play dumb, as incompetence at this scale can dissolve responsibility/accountability via complexity/laundering that can systematically benefit a select few.
88.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Ah, well, neither of our ego's can take credit, then. Id take the credit for it, but lack the ego.
89.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
no, that is work. you may want to review the second law of thermodynamics
90.
by Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
Once your model and map get larger than the thing it is modeling/mapping, then what? Let us hope the Pigeonhole principle isn't flawed, else we can find ourselves batteries in the Matrix.

More ›