daishi55

3 ms·

1.
by daishi55 6d ago
LOL! Very sad. And of course there is a lot of ambiguity and unknown here. But this guy I don’t think has the capacity to deal with that kind of subtlety.
2.
by daishi55 6d ago
Yeah you already tried that one. You’re hiding behind implications because your actual argument doesn’t withstand the slightest scrutiny. You have yet to respond to either of the points I made. Zero intellectual conviction or courage!
3.
by daishi55 6d ago
Can you give an example of some of these things?
4.
by daishi55 6d ago
Oh no I meant to compare myself to the person I am talking to, because I believe my credentials and pedigree ought to convince them that I am a pretty smart guy and so the argument “if you think LLMs are intelligent then you’re dumb” doesn’
5.
by daishi55 6d ago
Sorry but are you trying to subtly imply that if I think LLMs are intelligent, I’m probably actually just a bit stupid? Because I would be more than happy to go head to head with you on academic and professional pedigree and credentials. I
6.
by daishi55 6d ago
I’m sorry but you either haven’t been following recent developments or you are pretending not to know the opinions of the top mathematicians on this topic: > These models are now operating[2] at the level of the top human mathematicians
7.
by daishi55 6d ago
The point for me is that all these people who were smirking at those of us who thought in 2023 that LLMs had the potential to do real intellectual work turned out to be completely wrong. I’m a super skeptical guy. I was late to the ChatGPT
8.
by daishi55 6d ago
You seem to be winking a little bit and I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say, but I agree with the one you are replying to: the author of this article wrote a lot of words - like a lot a lot of words - only to look very foolish a
9.
by daishi55 6d ago
From the open letter signed by Terry Tao and other top mathematicians: > These models are now operating at the level of the top human mathematicians in many parts of the subject and we must assume there is a significant chance of them de
10.
by daishi55 6d ago
I think LLMs are intelligent. What don’t I understand about them that would make me change my mind? Keeping in mind that for me “intelligence” is the ability to solve complicated, intellectually demanding problems, and to understand novel c
11.
by daishi55 6d ago
> The LLM did not solve it. It's not intelligent. Humans did, The humans who are using LLMs to make these groundbreaking advances pretty much unanimously disagree that they lack any intelligence.
12.
by daishi55 6d ago
That is very much not the consensus of experts.
13.
by daishi55 6d ago
> many people are convinced that language models, or specifically chat-based language models, are intelligent. But there isn’t any mechanism inherent in large language models (LLMs) that would seem to enable this Seems like we can just s
14.
by daishi55 7d ago
How about jobs without KPIs? Jobs without performance reviews? Can we get a list of jobs where I don’t have to do any work? Jobs are full of things we don’t like or don’t want to do. I don’t understand this fixation on leetcode as unaccepta
15.
by daishi55 8d ago
> And yet, despite having found literally thousands of new vulnerabilities (only a fraction of which were reported to Open Source projects, by the way), I don't think that we're any safer than before. I’m not sure I follow. The
16.
by daishi55 8d ago
Hmmm. I don’t really have any issues with frontier models not implementing my prompts correctly, and presumably that will only become more and more the case as the models get better and better. This seems like almost a non-issue already and
17.
by daishi55 9d ago
Yeah you’re right. And also part of it is that I simply don’t know enough deep physics to maybe start to get a more “intuitive” grasp on things. But on the other hand I do feel there are cases where other fields have true explanations witho
18.
by daishi55 9d ago
The kernel is programmed, and it only ever does exactly what it was programmed to do. So all of its behavior must be specified, and any problem it “solves” was solved by the programmer who told it exactly how to solve that problem. That is
19.
by daishi55 9d ago
Yes which is exactly my point? It can handle the ambiguity of a simple prompt. It can look into the problem I’ve pointed it at, figure out what is really go on, and implement a correct solution, autonomously.
20.
by daishi55 9d ago
Whew, really fantastic article! > “In physics, description is explanation” (author quoting his PhD advisor) Yes, i have always hated this about physics. It is the only scientific field that apparently feels no responsibility to explain “
21.
by daishi55 12d ago
I mean in that sense nothing is autonomous right? As a human I need to be taught, fed, socialized, given instructions, etc… Idk man when codex is working 13 hours straight based on a few line prompt, it feels autonomous to me.
22.
by daishi55 13d ago
> Sure, there is an autocomplete aspect, but it's not the core nor anywhere near the full story. This can apply equally to LLMs or humans. So what is the utility of the word if it just describes the whole range of things we are talk
23.
by daishi55 13d ago
Models should be accurate. I was saying the mental model should be readjusted in that case because it does not reflect reality. If they don’t care about understanding reality then sure, they can use whatever mental model they want.
24.
by daishi55 14d ago
I’m not policing anything. I’m claiming that if you truly in your heart believe that frontier LLMs are roughly as sophisticated and impressive as “autocomplete”, then your mental model of reality needs some serious readjustment.
25.
by daishi55 14d ago
> Once you understand the corporate culture of AI "hyperscalers" consists primarily of everyone cooking their brains by locking themselves in the bathroom, holding flashlights under their chins, and saying "Aaaaaaaaaay Eye
26.
by daishi55 14d ago
That is all that Ed Zitron deserves lol. Completely unserious person. Really on the same intellectual level as the flat earthers at this point. And at both we may simply point and laugh.
27.
by daishi55 14d ago
I don’t think the person you replied to was saying anything about what if anything is the subjective experience of being an LLM. They were simply illustrating how the terms used to describe LLMs to make them sound simple and mechanical can
28.
by daishi55 14d ago
You can describe anything in simplistic terms to make it sound simple. Calling frontier LLMs “autocomplete” indicates you are intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding their capabilities and applications.
29.
by daishi55 15d ago
ADS (AI derangement syndrome)
30.
by daishi55 17d ago
Uh, sounds like a prediction to me? It’s not “not a prediction” just because the prediction is not made on a certain type of data.

More ›