RandomLensman

19 ms·

31.
by RandomLensman 24d ago
There are also high real estate values in places with low homeownership and largely pay-as-you-go retirement systems.
32.
by RandomLensman 24d ago
Not sure forcing land use to its highest efficiency will get nice results. Where is money stored (other than physical) that has its capacity blocked?
33.
by RandomLensman 24d ago
The subprime market changed quite a bit in size and how much was securitized in the run up to 2007, so not sure a prediction in 2000 for a 2003 event would have been easily transferred to what happened later. Would really come down to what
34.
by RandomLensman 24d ago
Were there some criminal convictions?
35.
by RandomLensman 24d ago
I am fully aware of the GFC, but not sure what "take down" should mean there in relation to Bear. Not everyone who spoke about house price risk was ridiculed, btw.
36.
by RandomLensman 24d ago
What do you mean by "take down Bear Stearns"? Btw., projections are just that - projections and I am not sure Acemoglu proved things mathematical (as in a mathematical proof) but rather within the context of a model/assumptio
37.
by RandomLensman 27d ago
I think the language unhelpful and potentially making it difficult to understand what actually happens in the RL state as reading it imparts a human lens - need to get the machine view on it. Bacteria do all sorts of fascinating things. And
38.
by RandomLensman 27d ago
But we don't know - just saying it could isn't enough. Bacteria are quite complex, btw.
39.
by RandomLensman 27d ago
So we know that implementation doesn't matter as long as it is somehow making predictions (and predictions also on different things)? Most living things are prediction engines in a way, why compare to the brain then to start with and n
40.
by RandomLensman 27d ago
Is there any indication from our current understanding that brains are nothing more than probabilistic token generators? Not like we have no understanding of the brain.
41.
by RandomLensman 27d ago
We don't anthropomorphise humans. Edit: quite literally not possible.
42.
by RandomLensman 27d ago
Not the OP, but complex emergent behavior and intelligence don't need to go together. Understanding what happened might not need intelligence in the mix when a large number of machines with some randomness interact a lot.
43.
by RandomLensman 27d ago
I don't think looking at the language output without tracking the inner state and reward functions is the way to understand what happened (the language also incorporates the randomness in the output generation, if I understand correct
44.
by RandomLensman 29d ago
I disagree there. Gut bacteria or parasites might have some control over us, for example. Likewise humans can control more intelligent humans, for example - not really an issue. Intelligence isn't some magic to escape physics, for exam
45.
by RandomLensman 29d ago
Align the possible outcomes, not necessarily the thing itself. Do we align heavy machinery the way AI is suggested to be aligned (or align pathogens when in a laboratory)? My point is that something more like containment & control (i.e.
46.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
Is there data on how frequently and what types of security levels? Military has varying levels of security and secrecy, for example. Also, not a reason not to pursue processes etc., no? I doubt that things fail all the time, for example.
47.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
Regulations can help align processes, incentives, etc. Not sure heavy machinery is aligned in the sense that people talk about AI, for example.
48.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
I don't want such a world either. So far I'd say these entities are hypothetical (unless you include a lot of other machinery that does unexpected things at times - but then it's a different discussion). I generally think we
49.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
Simple examples here would be higher financial transparency obligations or more closely policing transactions.
50.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
That is about persuasion with evidence on various topics, not about persuading people to abandon safty protocols and processes and highly policed settings. Yes, many things could happen, but again, that failure is possible is not a reason t
51.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
I am not anthropomorphising the LLMs at all, I was talking about the obligations we put on humans using/making/etc. machines etc.
52.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
The current issues are not caused by some malicious god-like AI - maybe we need to focus on the issues at hand first rather than hypotheticals? (And we do have experience policing people around financial incentives, too. Nothing perfect, bu
53.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
With humans (and some machines) we tend to put/manadate additional processes for certain risks instead of just relying on their own good nature. Why just rely on the machine when elsewhere we have learned not to necessarily just trust
54.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
I didn't say it doesn't happen, but that it is a low probability. And we have ways to reduce probabilities in critical areas. There is no omnipotent AI currently (and there might never be) and I don't see why with current AI
55.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
We have all sorts of processes , procedures, and regulations for people, machine use etc. to address "alignment" in all sorts of fields - don't think we need to narrowly rely on the machine here and can look at things with a
56.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
A low probability thing when looking at how many human prisoners escape by talking a guard into just getting them out. And even lower probability when looking at truly high risk situations, I think.
57.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
I think we need to see something like an actual evaluation of the reward functions; not sure just words are sufficient to understand the state of the system (isn't there randomness in the generation, too?).
58.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
We regulate these things (incl. access) all the time for various things (e.g., dangerous substances or pathogens) so that we don't need to just rely on people's discipline in respect of risks. I don't think it is all new prob
59.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
But the people directing them are there. We have long experience with limiting people although it might sometimes not look like that so much.
60.
by RandomLensman 1mo ago
Same issue with humans in a way. I disgree on the advisory nature of constraints, though. Unconnected physically limits would still matter, for example (and we use those with humans as a matter of course, too). In this case here, no model c

More ›