c_crank

20 ms·

241.
by c_crank 3y ago
Your comment framed AI Doomsdaying as being a concern of the public, when it is pretty far from being something the public cares about.
242.
by c_crank 3y ago
As far as the public goes, their primary concern would be how LLMs could put a lot of them out of work in the artistic fields. AI Doomsdaying is primarily a hobby for nerdy scientists who believe too much in the singularity, not the average
243.
by c_crank 3y ago
We have. If you are, say, trying to train a sheepdog to herd sheep, these new foods and games and drugs will be of little use compared to the tried and true methods.
244.
by c_crank 3y ago
Evolutionary algorithms are 'like' evolution because they have some form of selection pressure. The incremental improvements of the Wright Brothers airplane was 'like' evolution. The design 'evolved' in respons
245.
by c_crank 3y ago
We have techniques like training the animal to associate certain behaviors with food or punishment. These techniques are primitive and have been around for thousands of years with little improvement. Few of the AI doomsday theorists propose
246.
by c_crank 3y ago
The LLM with the ability to write infinitely powerful malware to hijack anyone's computer (still unproven) has the ability to commit crimes to try and frame humans so that other humans would then arrest them. This is the sort of thing
247.
by c_crank 3y ago
"The Darwinian evolution of tools" is a statement that makes little sense because Darwin working with things that were alive - undesigned and capable of reproduction. There may be some similarities, but the processes behind each t
248.
by c_crank 3y ago
It matters in the context of Darwinian evolution. Crows do not design other crows, new crows are born with some mutated traits. And so on for everything else down the food chain. AIs do not mutate and grow, their coders do that for them. Ev
249.
by c_crank 3y ago
If you take the stupidest human possible, or go back further down the evolutionary tree to one of our stupidest primate ancestors, it would still be able to kill a chicken. A cow is stronger than a human, and it took several human invention
250.
by c_crank 3y ago
Humans generally have mastery over chickens. This is because humans are bigger and stronger and can shove chickens around with their big hands and arms. Intelligence did not grant this human mastery over chickens. What intelligence did gran
251.
by c_crank 3y ago
People have used ChatGPT to write typical malware that hijacks a computer to let the deployer do what they want with it. What ChatGPT hasn't done is write a virus that takes the infected computer and deploys a new instance of ChatGPT o
252.
by c_crank 3y ago
The most basic parasite still can make more parasites and grow to the extent its biology allows. AIs are more like tools, where their usefulness convinces the makers to make more tools. Is the potter's wheel a parasite, for convincing
253.
by c_crank 3y ago
Life is not a machine. The food crows eat was not built. It grew. Life needs energy, from the sun, but not a designer.
254.
by c_crank 3y ago
The intelligence gains we've seen in AI have a strong correlation to the amount of computing power that can run the AI program. The hypothetical case of an AI learning to minify itself as a virus would be a dead end for this, because i
255.
by c_crank 3y ago
Basic human competence is already signing a law keeping AI away from nuclear weapons management. Just letting a LLM have an internet connection has not resulted in any sort of doomsday scenario.
256.
by c_crank 3y ago
I'm biased towards the success animals and plants display in the non silicon realm. Animals like crows can reproduce and spread across various land forms only needing the inputs of food and water. They do not need some other species li
257.
by c_crank 3y ago
Malware and computer viruses as they exist today have more fitness then AIs or LLMs.
258.
by c_crank 3y ago
What I'm trying to get at is that the AI lacks the ability to exploit these resources. Life is dependent on either other life or the sun. But a plant can naturally grow its own 'solar panels' and then make more plants. ChatGP
259.
by c_crank 3y ago
The other side of the argument seems to hold very odd assumptions about things like thermodynamics and robotics work, or even intelligence itself. Think of the whole 'AI in a box' argument, which assumes a superintelligence has su
260.
by c_crank 3y ago
They probably don't have those either, that's just me anthropomorphizing them. Regardless, their autonomy is lacking.
261.
by c_crank 3y ago
Predators and herbivores kill and eat, fungi decompose. Even plants grow towards sunlight. The LLM sits and hopes someone is paying for the lights to stay on.
262.
by c_crank 3y ago
Darwin would have a lot of things to say about a hypothetical creature that was utterly dependent on other creatures to feed it and allow it to reproduce, and few of them would be positive.
263.
by c_crank 3y ago
A lot more of the lower income segment is more pro-cop than higher income segments. Those individuals may not trust the police, but they still typically prefer their presence to a lack of it.
264.
by c_crank 3y ago
So long as you're using a single Monad like a black box. Haskell people repeatedly fail when trying to generalize them or explain the underlying premises.
265.
by c_crank 3y ago
JavaScript has never been and probably never will achieve any sort of purity due to the design decisions made in its debut. Frameworks can only paper over that so much.
266.
by c_crank 3y ago
My IRL experience with pure functional code in academia was so unpleasant that I have since strived to stay as far away from it as I possibly can.
267.
by c_crank 3y ago
What I would take issue with is describing a non functional or non Monadified code as something written by a gunslinger without care for robustness, as if writing things in Monads has a guarantee of robustness or correctness or even maintai
268.
by c_crank 3y ago
Multi paradigm support, low level / C interop capacity, really any sort of native features
269.
by c_crank 3y ago
Looks like my previous comment was too mean towards JavaScript, so trying this again... Just using some form of static typing offers easy guarantees without much effort. Trying to Monad-ify everything for a much smaller level of compiler gu
270.
by c_crank 3y ago
Python itself was designed with the intent of pressuring programmers to write Python in one specific way. The problems that crop up in large Python codebases are probably the result of using Python outside of its intended scope of scripting

More ›