emp17344

16 ms·

271.
by emp17344 10mo ago
If you go to the X page linked on the blog, the page owner mentions a “collaboration” with Google Deepmind on this project. It wouldn’t shock me if this just an elaborate advertisement for Gemini.
272.
by emp17344 10mo ago
The fact that people here take AI 2027 seriously is embarrassing. The authors are already beginning to walk back these claims: https://x.com/eli_lifland/status/1992004724841906392?s=20
273.
by emp17344 10mo ago
You seem to think the debate is settled, but that’s far from true. It’s oddly controlling to attempt to discredit any opposition to this viewpoint. There’s plenty of research supporting the stochastic view of these models, such as Apple’s “
274.
by emp17344 10mo ago
Leave it to HN to be militantly misanthropic to sell chatbots.
275.
by emp17344 10mo ago
On the other hand, ever since LLMs came on the scene, there’s been a vocal group claiming that AI will become intelligent and rapidly bring about human extinction - think the r/singularity crowd. This seems just as untenable a position
276.
by emp17344 10mo ago
Research is the only thing that will convince me. That’s the way it should be.
277.
by emp17344 10mo ago
If there’s evidence of productivity improvements through AI use, please provide more information. From what I’ve seen, the actual data shows that AI use slows developers down.
278.
by emp17344 10mo ago
If you feel the need to hype up AI to this degree, you should provide some data proving that AI use actually increases productivity. This type of fact-free polemic isn’t interesting or useful.
279.
by emp17344 10mo ago
Intelligence isn’t rigorously defined or measurable, so any conversation about the nature of intelligence will be inherently philosophical. Like it or not, intelligence just is an abstract concept. I’m trying to illustrate that the constrai
280.
by emp17344 10mo ago
>Unless your position is that the intelligence of a brain that was grown in a vat with no inputs would be equivalent to that of a normal person. Entirely possible - we just don’t know. The closest thing we have to a real world case study
281.
by emp17344 10mo ago
People with sensory impairments from birth may be restricted in certain areas, on account of the sensory impairment, but are no less generally cognitively capable than the average person.
282.
by emp17344 10mo ago
It’s unlikely sensory data contributes to intelligence in human beings. Blind people take in far, far less sensory data than sighted people, and yet are no less intelligent. Think of Helen Keller - she was deafblind from an early age, and y
283.
by emp17344 10mo ago
This isn’t goalpost shifting - everyone is trying to figure out what AI is good at. It’s certainly not the panacea many here make it out to be.
284.
by emp17344 10mo ago
In most cases, you don’t know if it came to the correct answer.
285.
by emp17344 10mo ago
I’m extremely skeptical because of all those articles claiming OpenAI was freaking out about Gemini - now it turns out they just casually had a better model ready to go? I don’t buy it.
286.
by emp17344 10mo ago
How do you reconcile this belief with the fact that we evolved from organisms that had no concept of text?
287.
by emp17344 10mo ago
Excellent point. See also the failure of Sapir-Whorf to prove that language determines thought. I think we have plenty of evidence that, while language can influence thought, it is not thought itself. Many people invested in AI are happy to
288.
by emp17344 10mo ago
I would argue that AI psychosis is a consequence of believing that AI models are “alive” or “conscious”.
289.
by emp17344 10mo ago
If you think that’s the same jacket, you need to get your eyes checked. The jacket pattern changed from multicolored to full-on camo.
290.
by emp17344 10mo ago
It’s important to note that these “research papers” that Anthropic releases are not properly peer-reviewed and not accepted by any scientific journal or institution. Anthropic has a history of over-exaggerating research, and have an obvious
291.
by emp17344 10mo ago
Where’s the proof that efficient compression results in “understanding”? Is there a rigorous model or theorem, or did you just make this up?
292.
by emp17344 10mo ago
Historically, this is not how technology that improves productivity has affected the economy. I’d encourage you to learn more about economics and the history of automation.
293.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Certainly not a full understanding, but there’s enough understanding to refute vague claims that we are somehow analogous to a text model.
294.
by emp17344 11mo ago
I think it’s entirely possible that AI actually has plateaued, or has reached a point where a jump in intelligence comes at the cost of reliability.
295.
by emp17344 11mo ago
It’s not peer-reviewed, and was never accepted by a scientific journal. It’s a marketing paper masquerading as science.
296.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Except we know for a fact that the brain doesn’t work that way. You’re ignoring the entire history of neuroscience.
297.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Anthropic is pretty notorious for peddling hype. This is a marketing article - it has not undergone peer-review and should not be mistaken for scientific research.
298.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Other than inflated tech stocks making money off the promise of AI, what real economic impact has it actually had? I recall plenty of articles claiming that companies are having trouble actually manifesting the promised ROI.
299.
by emp17344 11mo ago
I’d be less skeptical about this year’s IMO claims if we had any information at all on how it was done.
300.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Except OpenAI’s value is overinflated by an economic bubble. They don’t have the manpower or resources to effectively implement an ad network on the scale they’d need to become profitable. Why are you insisting we keep the conversation posi

More ›