emp17344

22 ms·

361.
by emp17344 1y ago
There is no world in which LLMs are more powerful or impactful than nuclear weapons.
362.
by emp17344 1y ago
Of course fairly quick progress was made - a truly astounding amount of money was poured into this industry in a short timeframe. The thing is, now it’s clear that AI isn’t really valuable enough to justify investment on the same scale anym
363.
by emp17344 1y ago
Well, there aren’t any studies showing AI agents boost productivity, so it’s all we’ve got. It seems like a well-conducted study, so I’m inclined to trust its conclusions.
364.
by emp17344 1y ago
Sounds like conspiratorial thinking to come to terms with the fact that LLMs are fundamentally non-deterministic text predictors. You can get dramatically different responses to the same question, and that’s just how the system works.
365.
by emp17344 1y ago
Everyone has an agenda. Similarly, groups like r/singularity and the rationalists have spent years predicting the oncoming advent of a machine god, and are desperately reading too much into every LLM advancement.
366.
by emp17344 1y ago
The sample size isn’t the individual participants, it’s the hundreds of tasks performed as part of the study. There’s no indication the study was conducted incorrectly.
367.
by emp17344 1y ago
>once the person making them is able to explain, in detail and with mechanisms, what it is the human brain does that allows it to do these things, and in what ways those detailed mechanisms are different from what LLMs do. Extraordinary
368.
by emp17344 1y ago
Materialism is a necessary condition to claim that the ideas LLMs produce are identical to the ones humans produce, but it isn’t a sufficient condition. Your assertion does nothing to demonstrate that LLM output and human output is identica
369.
by emp17344 1y ago
Why do you think an AI would treat us any way at all? They don’t have feelings or emotions. They don’t have a persistent sense of self. They are incapable of engaging with us as sentient beings.
370.
by emp17344 1y ago
The idea of a malicious AI, like in a sci-fi movie, seems entirely divorced from what LLMs actually are. Look at the HN front page - these things struggle to perform basic accounting tasks, and you think it’s secretly plotting to commit gen
371.
by emp17344 1y ago
I think you’re getting ChatGPT confused with Skynet. I’m still confused as to why so many people think these things are going to kill us all.
372.
by emp17344 1y ago
And they still couldn’t solve P6. All that power to perform worse than many human contestants.
373.
by emp17344 1y ago
I mean, solutions for the 2025 IMO problems are already available on the internet. How can we be sure these are “unencountered” problems?
374.
by emp17344 1y ago
I’d expect any serious company to disclose conflicts of interest.
375.
by emp17344 1y ago
There’s no way to figure out whether they gained an advantage. We have to trust their claims, which again, is an issue for me after finding out they already lied.
376.
by emp17344 1y ago
They funded the entire benchmark and didn’t disclose their involvement. They then proceeded to make use of the benchmark while pretending like they weren’t affiliated with EpochAI. That’s a huge omission and more than enough reason to distr
377.
by emp17344 1y ago
OpenAI have already shown us they aren’t trustworthy. Remember the FrontierMath debacle?
378.
by emp17344 1y ago
I still haven’t forgotten OpenAI’s FrontierMath debacle from December. If they really have some amazing math-solving model, give us more info than a vague twitter hype-post.
379.
by emp17344 1y ago
Why don’t they release some info beyond a vague twitter hype post? I’m beginning to hate OpenAI for releasing statements like this that invariably end up being less impressive than they make it sound initially.
380.
by emp17344 1y ago
My buddy did it 5 years ago. You wouldn’t know him, he lives in Canada.
381.
by emp17344 1y ago
This simply isn’t the case. Humans actually perform better on ARC-AGI-2, according to their website: https://arcprize.org/leaderboard
382.
by emp17344 1y ago
If these things are truly exhibiting general reasoning, why do the same models do significantly worse on ARC-AGI-2, which is practically identical to ARC-AGI-1?
383.
by emp17344 1y ago
Specifically, which portions of the brain are “very specialized”? I’m not aware of any aspect of the brain that’s as narrowly applied to tasks as the tools LLMs use. For example, there’s no coding module within the brain - the same brain r
384.
by emp17344 1y ago
…like what? I thought the consensus was that humans exhibit truly general intelligence. If LLMs require access to very specific tools to solve certain classes of problems, then it’s not clear that they can evolve into a form of general inte
385.
by emp17344 1y ago
My understanding is that an agent is comprised of many tools that provide a harness for the LLM.
386.
by emp17344 1y ago
That’s not what he’s saying there. There’s a separate tool that adds line numbers before feeding the prompt into the LLM. It’s not the LLM doing it itself.
387.
by emp17344 1y ago
Why should we trust a guy with the following twitter bio to accurately replicate a scientific finding? >lead them to paradise >intelligence is inherently about scaling >be kind to us AGI Who even is this guy? He seems like just ano
388.
by emp17344 1y ago
Free markets are superior to planned economies because they’re able to instantly respond to consumer preferences, resulting in efficient allocation of resources. On a side note, I’m not sure why HN is often hostile to economic arguments. Ec
389.
by emp17344 1y ago
We can’t reduce consciousness to a math problem. Maybe that’s the thing that differentiates unfeeling statistics from living beings.
390.
by emp17344 1y ago
The existence of consciousness is self-evident, and yet we still have no idea what it is, or how to study it. We don’t have any understanding of consciousness.

More ›