JoshCole

12 ms·

61.
by JoshCole 4y ago
The Lady Lovelace argument is basically: Computer programs that can pass, pass because of hard coded rules. Therefore the computer doesn't think, it just does what it is told. Therefore, machines can't think. Therefore the prop
62.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Getting downvoted, but feel free to make up your own mind about whether Turing anticipated that hardcoded programs told what to do by people might exist. Here is the relevant section. (6) Lady Lovelace's Objection Our most detailed in
63.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Thank you! I appreciate the abundance of clarity. It corrected a misconception I had about what you were saying.
64.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> The first section is a decent summary. I read the first section and it doesn't seem to support your claim. In particular, it claims they have a mandate to protect consumers and links to another wiki entry on that topic. Within t
65.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Lot of people talking about the Turing test, so I'm going to go upstream of that a bit and inject the actual Imitation Game paper, because it has relevance. Let me quote the start of Turing's paper. > I propose to consider the
66.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Careful, you accidentally started talking about Turing, rather than the Turing Test. Turing and the Turing Test are two different things. For example, Turing talked about the Imitation Game, not the Turing Test. Critically (pun intended!)
67.
by JoshCole 4y ago
BTW, Bellman actually coined the term curse of dimensionality [1]; got that confused with combinatorial explosion since it is a synonyms in the contexts I typically encounter it [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
68.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> The argument was about publicity as a reward motivator, not publicity itself, as a causal relation to success. That the causal model supports publicity seeking leads us to ensemble models. When models are good for different reason, th
69.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> Which first-time founders do you think Paul Graham or Keith Rabois would more likely fund: Those who aspire to solve a problem with the world that they care passionately about? It is worth reflecting on the fact that the founder of Ope
70.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> to say otherwise is purely a straw man argument This is really overconfident. That publicity isn't causally connected to success is belied by the existence of the advertising industry. While generally refuting across industries,
71.
by JoshCole 4y ago
At Voyager's speed it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to reach Canis Major Dwarf. OpenAI was founded in 2015. So it has been eight years. 749,000,000 - 8 = 748,999,992. 1.06809079e-8% of the time of a random astronomical
72.
by JoshCole 4y ago
No, Stable Diffusion isn't the only one to release their weights. OpenAI hasn't been releasing weights for ChatGPT, but Stable Diffusion isn't the only ones releasing weights [1]. [1]: https://huggingface.co/
73.
by JoshCole 4y ago
No, it isn't astronomical. It is smaller than that. Still large, but not astronomical.
74.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Such a profound and counterintuitive truth - shows up everywhere and it is easy to miss the second order effect by focusing on the immediate impact. For example, science tries to be more correct by seeking out the places where it is wrong,
75.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I think you are just correct that customers are acting as testers. I think the issue he is having isn't on that point, where you are right. It is well known that issues happen despite extensive vetting. The presence of vetting does n
76.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> Never ever Musk tweeted about .1 fixing some critical issues coming in next few days? I must live in a different timeline. Lets say you have a baby which is being born. You tweet, birth in ten days! You can't then say, look: her
77.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> I said that the data isn't the only story, so appeals to data aren't dispositive. No, you didn't. You said please ignore all the times when I'm wrong in favor of when I'm right. This is what you actually said
78.
by JoshCole 4y ago
You seem to have thought I was talking about the utilities of `f` but I wasn't. I not only see the distinction you are talking about, but I'm making still further distinctions. To make it easier to avoid confusion, I'm just
79.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Good point. The thing is we often have discussions about this stuff and I'm trying to advocate for citing datasets to more tightly correlate our words with the evidence that our words correspond to. I'm not trying to say this ver
80.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I didn't say it was a magic bullet. So you are hallucinating thoughts about me, not responding to what I said. Being critical of the data like you are being is good thinking in my opinion. I just don't like how often people don
81.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I agree with you. I would really like to see datasets that reflect how things actually are. I think it would be really dangerous to jump to FSD being safe on the basis of the data I shared. However I would hope that whatever opinions peo
82.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> A system that protects 400 people but kills 1 is not a system that I want on public roads because I don't want to be in the 1 - Elon and the children of Elon are basically making the assumption that everyone is okay with this. &g
83.
by JoshCole 4y ago
You claim that I said that we should ignore evidence, but I didn't. I claimed that we should look at it. You claim that I said that we should focus on the good, but I didn't. I claimed that we should look at the data. Now I feel
84.
by JoshCole 4y ago
My position is that we ought to include assertions backed by the evidence. Your views probably do have evidence that supports them. I want to see the evidence you are using, because I think that is important. I'm not sorry that annoy
85.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I agree that people who don't cite the evidence are ignoring the evidence? Are you trying to say I'm doing that by pointing to relevant datasets which track the number of accidents and the probability of injury? If so, why are t
86.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I strongly feel people ought to have these discussions while consistently citing actual data sources relevant to the discussion. For example, did you predict, based on the speculation of Tesla being incompetent with regard to safety, that t
87.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> It will be. You can observe the evolution of Google's search system and it has converged to it's current of pushing stuff to sell before everything else. The charter of a public company is maximizing returns to share holders.
88.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I am a high decoupler. I generalize things like "analogy to self, self is human" to "analogy to self, self is category X" in order to improve my cognitive abilities by gaining abilities which have reach beyond the confi
89.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> to react with a reflex consideration ... because "otherwise Sydney would be sad". I think this is wrong, because in general, when analogy is good, it is typically good because of the tendency toward allowing for reflex respo
90.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Analogical reasoning has strong theoretical foundation. It is logical. It isn't an accident that analogy shares a root with logic. They are fundamentally related. Something like syllogistic logic is itself an analogical reasoning m

More ›