coldtea

24 ms·

601.
by coldtea 4mo ago
But some guys destroying health globally with sugar water did.
602.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> The problem isn't that you can't do something deserving of a billion dollars. Clearly it is possible. What's "clearly possible" is to create a product. Or to create C. It's not at all clear than anything
603.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> this pair of arguments makes a very tempting motte-and-bailey. The left can make the more dramatic argument that “all billionaires are cheaters”. Then if anyone points out that it’s possible to inherit a billion dollars as a baby, befo
604.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> Mozart doesn’t feel right. The code isn’t beautiful and elegant. It’s not built to last (at least for ffmpeg) or be some kind of masterpiece. Pedantic much? It's not about him writing elegant code like someone would write elegant
605.
by coldtea 4mo ago
Parent knows. He makes an analogy, not an absolute equivalence.
606.
by coldtea 4mo ago
Got it backwards. You had something: production. Now you have nothing.
607.
by coldtea 4mo ago
LOL, EU and the Dutch tried to pull this shit with Nexperia, it failed miserably and they reversed course fast.
608.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> You didn’t have massive sprawl communities until the investment was there to build systems to keep Nazis and trolls away. Oh, it kept the trolls and Nazis just fine (even brought some close to power). What the investment killed was th
609.
by coldtea 4mo ago
Yeah, they also don't mine their own steel and copper. Such mere assemblers!
610.
by coldtea 4mo ago
Yeah, that totally makes them merely assemblers then /s
611.
by coldtea 4mo ago
Yeah, Apple just designs and writes the SoC, CPU, graphics unit, neural unit, compiler (Swift), OS, graphics layer, 3D API, core libs from graphics to persistence, filesystem, broadband chip, and a few more things besides...
612.
by coldtea 4mo ago
It was different in several ways, one was far fewer people enforcing norms or doing marketing in those forums, far less moderation and tone policing, and far more tolerance (even rejoicing) into getting into deep technical argumentation and
613.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> Consider that this shared sense of rigour you have in mind is illusory Just because it was nowhere near perfect, and a lot of "religion" and hand waving was involved, doesn't mean it was illusory. It's enough that
614.
by coldtea 4mo ago
Wouldn't change much. Would just make the answer to the same exact prompt X repeatedly the same. It wouldn't change the fact that prompt X', functionaly indistinguisable from X, aside from small phrasing changes, can give a t
615.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> then what's the ceiling for people who are Technical. The fact that everybody else will be doing the same, and thus making any advantage of using AI moot.
616.
by coldtea 4mo ago
"Unless I was really excited for flipping burgers, the menu options, the new McKidney, non-working ice-cream machines, and the legacy of Ronald McDonald, I wouldn't want to take a job somewhere likely to make me miserable". A
617.
by coldtea 4mo ago
That's only because we hardcoded their weights in our implementation. Aside from the cost and slowness, nothing about an LLM prevents feeding recent stimuli in and using it to update the models/retrain.
618.
by coldtea 4mo ago
That's only because we hardcoded their weights in our implementation. Aside from the cost, nothing about an LLM prevents feeding recent stimuli in and using it to update the models/retrain. One can even do it in a makeshift way wi
619.
by coldtea 4mo ago
On an electroencephalogram we basically see signals moving around in different brain regions. We have no way to probe actual thought or consciousness in themselves.
620.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> There's no metaphysical anything about LLMs or how they do what they do. It's all just a bunch of fancy math "behind the curtain". That's my point, but about the human brain as well. It's just a bunch of
621.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> What then is your LLM "thinking" about between answers? The answer is nothing. Between answer it's thinking something else, somebody else asked :) You think that hardware sits idle? That aside, what is a human thinking
622.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> Indistinguishable output does not mean thinking occurred. It does for all intents and purposes. The rest is semantics and metaphysics. That how we know another person is thinking too. By their output. We don't put a debugger into
623.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> He should not have the kind of relationship with an AI that would enable discussions to turn into arguments. There doesn't need to be any kind of special "relationship with AI", parasocial or whatever for discussions to
624.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> These machines do not think and they do not have a mind Well, they do think, in that they produce output that is indistinguisable from thinking. If a person produced the same output to the same questions, we'd considered them thi
625.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> Your mental model of what Claude is and does is the problem here. Short of a revolutionary breakthrough in AI techniques, the LLMs will continue to do matrix math across a huge bunch of weights that cannot change based on anything you
626.
by coldtea 4mo ago
Roko's Basillisk suddenly doesn't seem that far-fetched :)
627.
by coldtea 4mo ago
LOL, exactly what it came to my mind when responding!
628.
by coldtea 4mo ago
Obviously because the latter lands more jobs.
629.
by coldtea 4mo ago
A simpler and more rigid program. Not 99% of programs. And even if they could, they never are. Besides AI is a program in the same sense. Fix the seed/temperature, and you can verify it to perform according to its specifications. It&#x
630.
by coldtea 4mo ago
> I give it instructions or ask it to explain things. And the author's point is that Claude Fable+ is turning those increasingly into arguments, instead of merely following them and being helpful. > A machine cannot "argue&

More ›