KoolKat23

9 ms·

121.
by KoolKat23 10mo ago
To be fair, we all know googles terms are ambiguous as hell. It would not be a big surprise nor an outright lie if they did use it. Its different if they proclaimed outright they won't use it and then do. Not that any of this is right,
122.
by KoolKat23 10mo ago
This new model is absurdly quick on my phone and for launch day, wonder if it's additional capacity/lower demand or if this is what we can expect going forward. On a related note, why would you want to break down your tasks to tha
123.
by KoolKat23 10mo ago
Token usage also needs to be factored in specifically when thinking is enabled, these newer models find more difficult problems easier and use less tokens to solve.
124.
by KoolKat23 10mo ago
I struggle to see the incentive to do this, I have similar thoughts for locally run models. It's only use case I can imagine is small jobs at scale perhaps something like auto complete integrated into your deployed application, or for
125.
by KoolKat23 10mo ago
The post makes quite the leap imo. That list is nuanced and basically it should not make a judgment, not what they say.
126.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
imo don't waste your time for coding with Gemini 3. Perhaps worth it if it's something Claude's not helping with, as Gemini 3's reasoning is very good supposedly.
127.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
Satya was definitely an improvement, a breath of fresh air. But the last few years, they've started dropping the ball. Everything is half-assed (new outlook), or releases too soon burning goodwill (new teams), or a miss being pushed on
128.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
I understand your viewpoint. LLM's these days have reasoning and can learn in context. They do touch reality, your feedback. It's also proven mathematically. Other people's scientific papers are critiqued and corrected as new
129.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
My use of the term illusion is more shallow than that, I merely use it as people think it's something separate and special. Based on what you've described the models already demonstrate this, it is implied for example in the model
130.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
1. You do. You probably have a different version of that and are saying I'm wrong merely for not holding your definition. 2. That directly addresses your point. In abstract it shows they're basically no different to multimodal mod
131.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
Well it depends. It doesn't have arms and legs so can't physically experiment in the real world, a human is currently a proxy for that, we can do it's bidding and feedback results though, so it's not really an issue. Mos
132.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
1. What's your definition of consciousness, let's start there. 2. Absolutely, it's a spectrum. Insects have function. 3. "Humans navigate maps built by other humans through language." You said it yourself. They use
133.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
This is exactly why I mentioned the weather. A scientific paper has to be verifiable, you should be able to recreate the experiment and come to the same conclusion. It's very very difficult to do with brains with trillions of parameter
134.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
Language and math are a world model of physical reality. You could not read a book and make sense of it if this were not true. An apple falls to the ground because of? gravity. In real life this is the answer, I'm very sure the pre-car
135.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
I mean peoples perception of it being a thing rather than a set of systems. But if that's your barometer, I'll say models are conscious. They may not have proper agency yet. But they are conscious.
136.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
Absolutely, it is world model building.
137.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
I was going to use this analogy in the exact opposite way. We do have a very good understanding of how the human brain works. Saying we don't understand how the brain works is like saying we don't understand how the weather works.
138.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
That's exactly the same for humans in the real world. You're focusing too close, abstract up a level. Your point relates to the "micro" system functioning, not the wider "macro" result (think emergent capabilit
139.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
When are we as humans creative outside our training data? It's very rare we actually discover something truly novel. This is often random, us stumbling onto it, brute force or purely by being at the right place at the right time. On th
140.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
Given a random prompt, the overall probability of seeing a specific output string is almost zero, since there are astronomically many possible token sequences. The same goes for humans. Most awards are built on novel research built on pre-e
141.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
In abstract we do the exact same thing
142.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
1. Consciousness itself is probably just an illusion, a phenomena/name of something that occurs when you bunch thinking together. Think of this objectively and base it on what we know of the brain. It literally is working off of what h
143.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
Correct. Under IFRS, the definition in IAS 24 / Section 33 of the IFRS for SMEs explicitly includes associates and their investors as related parties. So if Microsoft reports under IFRS, OpenAI would indeed be a related party. Under U.
144.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
You're ignoring what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with related parties. It's not simply a definition and it's not an opinion, this took a semester to put the pieces together. I've explained why it's treat
145.
by KoolKat23 11mo ago
>If Microsoft has significant influence over OpenAI (as implied by equity-method accounting), then: OpenAI is a related party of Microsoft; and Microsoft must disclose the nature of the relationship and any material transactions between
146.
by KoolKat23 1y ago
Most people use windows and I'm sure associate free with freemium or android with spam notifications.
147.
by KoolKat23 1y ago
I feel the entire philosophical distinction is tainted to the point where it should be retired and no longer discussed. It was useful as a thought experiment but folks in general have shown they are completely unable to understand this and
148.
by KoolKat23 1y ago
No, these are separate subjects with specific definitions (it's a specific name not a phrase of speech). I struggle to explain it briefly as it's an entire subject and I might be lambasted here for wrongly simplifying as it's
149.
by KoolKat23 1y ago
These are American boxes. Skewed by American culture. Simplistic to the absurd extent where it can mean the tail leads the dog i.e. people will adopt some viewpoint they're actually at odds with deep down. More tribalism than any fund
150.
by KoolKat23 1y ago
It's not a related party that's the point.

More ›