calf

3 ms·

1.
by calf 7d ago
But these are not very good arguments, because it makes it about the fall of institutions (the funding) and people being miserable for personal reasons rather than prosocial reasons. Tao here clearly suggests that math is not reducible to &
2.
by calf 8d ago
Why such a blinkered argument, I own the soda can I just drank but it is still, arguably, wrong of me to chuck it in the trash instead of the recycle bin. Yes, you have the "right" to dispose of things you own but there's mor
3.
by calf 9d ago
The problem with the Fields medallists petition was that its central argument relied on reiterating a very fashionable, neoliberal-academic trope, that science as a whole is "done by a culture of experts", implying that there is n
4.
by calf 10d ago
Such a simplistic historical comparison tells on yourself, it is precisely this mentality that larger sociopolitical forces exploit and reproduce new fascisms and the like. In other words your very argument demonstrates the falsity of the c
5.
by calf 15d ago
I'm not going articulate the answer but I will say whatever beef you have with the other commenter (or me), just copy this thread into ChatGPT and it will tell you why you are more in the wrong.
6.
by calf 15d ago
That commenter was already obnoxious under this thread, and today they are relitigating Searle-Turing via Hofstadter GEB slop, so they are also an ignoramus.
7.
by calf 15d ago
So the credibility of your friends weighs more than the credibility of tenured professors at world-class academic institutions, got it.
8.
by calf 16d ago
Clearly your degrees did not make you immune from fallacies and simplistic reductions. "Synthesis" is obviously of different kinds. A duck has a different level of intelligence than a human. We do not say both are "just doing
9.
by calf 16d ago
Or protein folding as per Scott Aaronson.
10.
by calf 16d ago
It's like AlphaGo but playing against all living mathematicians. (Overhang being low hanging fruit is what allows this comparison, of course the general moot point is the skepticism that LLMs are also innovative etc.)
11.
by calf 16d ago
So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy. To think this discussion is about E
12.
by calf 16d ago
Also how quickly the discourse forgets, literally that was a month ago.
13.
by calf 16d ago
And humanities have a word for this, exploitation, or appropriation, maybe it's time scientists and engineers revisited basic ethical notions. Skimming a dozen threads and nobody seems to have this vocabulary or willing to say it.
14.
by calf 16d ago
If only prompts could also be watermarked.
15.
by calf 17d ago
Buckmaster is letting the reader connect the dots, it is all the more disrespectful to be disingenuous and say they're nothing there concerning to see or worth further ethical scrutiny given the coincidences.
16.
by calf 17d ago
You realize that hill is a mathematical argument, not a physical hill.
17.
by calf 17d ago
Your perspective is not helpful until you read and reflect on Tristan's letter stating serious grievances. Your remarks here have minimized his complaints and that is a sign of bias. Do not then pre-accuse HN commenters of being convin
18.
by calf 17d ago
The difference is no one writes punchcards so the comparison is inapt. It is more like supposing AI eats everything humans attempt to do. They will take your work as you are working on it, any interaction at all. It is meta-plagiarism, on a
19.
by calf 18d ago
It has no legs as an "explanation" because the content of the email (as described) already acknowledges as much. It's the whole reason he wrote contact email. His chief complaint now includes how the hell did Altman's
20.
by calf 18d ago
> I'm not even sure what to say to this, but I think this should be widely known if it is indeed what happened. Call this behavior what it is, technofascism. Another comment compared it to the Godfather. To think this is the 21st ce
21.
by calf 18d ago
One should not evaluate explanations based on level of "fine"/innocuousness, in ethics that is called motivated reasoning or something. The whole point of Tristan's first email was to address the issue of the rumors so i
22.
by calf 18d ago
Then that's naive of him to write the email, he fell for their trap essentially.
23.
by calf 18d ago
That's a fake explanation, it skips explaining/justifying how OpenAi "heard about" the result
24.
by calf 21d ago
I literally thought of this comparison last week. The problem I noticed was how my parents' generation lacked the cognitive "defenses" to separate AI social media content on YouTube, WhatsApp and the like from high quality in
25.
by calf 24d ago
Then where does self-reference appear in other animals? Famously most higher animals such as mammals still fail the mirror test. I agree with the point that self-reference comes "for free" due to computationalist reasons, namely Q
26.
by calf 28d ago
I'm stupid, consider a quadrilateral with points b a c d Then the area needs to be the trapezoids projected to x axis is ab+bc-ad-dc. What is the correct way to keep track of the signs? I.e. what is the definition of
27.
by calf 29d ago
The statement, written by someone else, matches what I happen to generally believe about the Economist. Do not presume to understand other people's concerns based on one or two sentences. I don't know how to explain that in an onl
28.
by calf 29d ago
I care about the fennel I grew in my backyard. Then one day I made fennel salad.
29.
by calf 29d ago
I read some long piece by him last year, just as terrible. It's a pattern. These are what we call court philosophers, the court is in Google HQ.
30.
by calf 29d ago
I hate ad hominems leveled (especially against me), but the information about the Economist and this author is relevant. It suggests bad faith (to readers who have noticed a pattern by those sources). Which is not necessarily an ad hominem.

More ›