SanderNL

50 ms·

511.
by SanderNL 4y ago
Banning will only increase interest for it. All this press will just generate more attention. Europeans, let's focus on getting our own AI off the ground. Dragging others down will only increase our irrelevance. I don't see an ups
512.
by SanderNL 4y ago
Take shelter under my protective wings, O, sweet summer children.
513.
by SanderNL 4y ago
I find it interesting it’s very hard to make it do typos. The type of errors humans make. It can do typos but even those seem weird. If I push it to make errors it either over- or undershoots. The “correctness” of it is a definite give away
514.
by SanderNL 4y ago
We call that “companies”. We just need to apply what we learned in business school to a different set of workers, slightly deficient workers.
515.
by SanderNL 4y ago
Increasing my energy bill with a factor four did help..
516.
by SanderNL 4y ago
You think lawyers take legal liability?
517.
by SanderNL 4y ago
You, good sir, have a disturbing lack of imagination. What I can ask my computer has just leaped from templated strings to raw human conversation. I have a hard time imagining something not getting impacted. First of all iPhone autocomple
518.
by SanderNL 4y ago
I understand, but it feels like only allowing CS students based on the amount of jobs at Meta. I don't understand why you need to walk around a hospital (Meta/Google/etc) to be a GP. Some leveling would be appropriate (IMO -
519.
by SanderNL 4y ago
"Society" cannot, because capitalism. If you want to stay in business internationally that is. Curious to see how we are going to compete without AI.
520.
by SanderNL 4y ago
"Seeing the patient" is an important step towards "patient getting better". > have not had their problems validated and have been to many doctors and seen no results or poor results, Also, being validated or not is no
521.
by SanderNL 4y ago
I see, very interesting.
522.
by SanderNL 4y ago
They trust us and we are eroding that trust by invading their privacy for bs reasons. They do not understand, they just shrug “I guess devs need this”. They expect us to know, to care, because it is our job. We don’t and it’s sad.
523.
by SanderNL 4y ago
“help us help you”? If that is so, just ask and explain and be more specific than “this helps improve things”. How hard is it to say how exactly this vague ball of data is helping The Users?
524.
by SanderNL 4y ago
Seeing as simple image decoders are still producing CVEs I think it’s worth considering vastly more stupid approaches that get us 80% of the way with 20% of the trouble.
525.
by SanderNL 4y ago
What is a domain? You talk of it like you know what it means. These things have no concept of a domain. If they use reasoning they use it all over the place. It is up to us to judge domainness.
526.
by SanderNL 4y ago
Yes.
527.
by SanderNL 4y ago
Hallucination is what it does, it never stops hallucinating. Whether and how we assign truth values to it is a different matter and quite arbitrary. I suspect we need to cooperate with another AI fit for that specific purpose.
528.
by SanderNL 4y ago
I understand, it’s a failure mode unique to LLM’s. What I mean is that it has no relation with intelligence. Humans have failure modes too and often quite weird an surprising ones too, but they are different. It’s just that we biased and us
529.
by SanderNL 4y ago
In all ways except .. its output? Which is the only thing that matters? What if you were engineered? Would that invalidate your abilities? I apologize for being difficult.
530.
by SanderNL 4y ago
That's indeed interesting. By the way, it found another pattern: [d, f, h] => j. Your starting letters were sequentially meaningful too. According to this pattern the word "jazz" would be acceptable. I experimented a bit w
531.
by SanderNL 4y ago
I agree word play is always an issue. Keep in mind we start over every generation. We keep training on new data. I've also thought about human development and what I find interesting is that an anatomical modern human is not automatica
532.
by SanderNL 4y ago
It's important to note that it doesn't do "correct". It can do whatever, it doesn't care about truth. Setting the stage is very important. If you don't it doesn't know if it's doing improv on stage or
533.
by SanderNL 4y ago
If it quacks like a duck.. Really, if it always produces output that conforms to "expectations of a reasoning actor", isn't that defacto a "reasoning actor"? What's the use of making the distinction?
534.
by SanderNL 4y ago
Humans are notoriously bad at assessing what happens when they think. See the whole AI-winter debacle. You don't know what happens when you think because you are dependent on your own mind giving you that information and it won't.
535.
by SanderNL 4y ago
> You have a huge database. You need to make a number of non-trivial queries with subtle but precise requirements against it. Your livelihood depends on these results being correct. You have limited time to work on it. I admit I am not t
536.
by SanderNL 4y ago
OK, I wanted to be sure because GPT was getting it quicker than I did.
537.
by SanderNL 4y ago
You just explained how abstraction and intelligence in general works. > but can consistently replicate not only its training but even more beyond that We call that generalization. No?
538.
by SanderNL 4y ago
I apologize for being enormously stupid, but the word is a rhyme with the underlying number right? Edit: I want to add I even get GPT3 getting it right without explanation to be honest. Even that one is outsmarting me. 4 is using terms like
539.
by SanderNL 4y ago
I do not. What I say is that I perceive them. Their realness is a non-issue (to me). "Factual", you mean by "authorities"? I do get your point, but I think you overthink the issue. If you see something, it is there. It c
540.
by SanderNL 4y ago
Fair enough. Your point is valid and I hate to be that person, but.. > It does matter, because the flat earther isn't to likely make something up about everything they talk about. I am less optimistic about this. It seems to me you

More ›