emp17344

20 ms·

391.
by emp17344 1y ago
Hold on a minute - why do we have to be materialists? Maybe this whole debate is revealing that materialism is misguided.
392.
by emp17344 1y ago
It’s four steps. It’s not rocket science.
393.
by emp17344 1y ago
I feel like practically anybody could solve Tower of Hanoi for any degree of complexity using this algorithm. It’s a four step process that you just repeat over and over.
394.
by emp17344 1y ago
This kind of statement isn’t productive. Everyone has a bias. If you don’t believe the paper is valid, I’d like to hear your substantive critique.
395.
by emp17344 1y ago
The paper was written by highly accomplished ML researchers who don’t have any stake in Apple’s continued success. Framing this peer-reviewed research written by respected authors as “sour grapes” is intellectually dishonest.
396.
by emp17344 1y ago
Everyone has an agenda. Companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are incentivized to overstate the capabilities of LLMs, so it’s not like they’re any less biased.
397.
by emp17344 1y ago
Science is a great way to model reality. It’s unclear whether science accurately describes reality. It’s also unclear whether science is capable of determining metaphysical truth. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie
398.
by emp17344 1y ago
Except AI doesn’t do anything better than the human mind, and doesn’t have any use cases beyond what humans can do.
399.
by emp17344 1y ago
I’ve provided a source. You haven’t.
400.
by emp17344 1y ago
>Economics is a pseudo-science typically used to launder political ideology This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard on here. Perfect example of conspiratorial thinking. Automation has always resulted in economic growth. This
401.
by emp17344 1y ago
[flagged]
402.
by emp17344 1y ago
The economy is not zero-sum. That’s just a fact. Go ahead, cite something to back up your claim.
403.
by emp17344 1y ago
Productivity gains boost the economy. The net result is job creation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy HN is often economically illiterate.
404.
by emp17344 1y ago
This paper makes the claim that the “reasoning” output these models produce isn’t a necessary component of these models, and is likely unrelated to the actual final output: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13775 Just because
405.
by emp17344 1y ago
Similarly, if you are unable to define something, your claim that a computer program is doing that thing is greatly weakened. If anything, the burden of proof is on you.
406.
by emp17344 1y ago
People would’ve said the same thing about ELIZA. Turns out, people are inclined to anthropomorphize non-conscious objects or systems. This is especially true for chatbots, which are able to mimic language. Again, why should we believe that
407.
by emp17344 1y ago
The fact that no one can agree on how useful these things are makes me think they aren’t that useful.
408.
by emp17344 1y ago
No one can provide a technical definition of what it means to think. That doesn’t mean LLMs are thinking. This style of argument, which often boils down to “you can’t solidly define the thought process, therefore LLMs can think!” is a falla
409.
by emp17344 1y ago
It’s laughable to suggest AI is improving exponentially. Recent models, like o3, hallucinate more than their precursors and are therefore less useful.
410.
by emp17344 1y ago
How are you justified in saying “ AI is a reflection of the self”? LLMs just make connections between text within a data set. AI is a reflection of the data it was trained on, not a reflection of the user.
411.
by emp17344 1y ago
> As we’re finding: solving the markov process iteratively is the foundation of intelligence No, the markov process allows LLMs to make connections between existing representations of human intelligence. LLMs are nothing without a data s
412.
by emp17344 2y ago
That’s exactly what’s happening. I’m not convinced there’s any real progress occurring here.
413.
by emp17344 2y ago
Not really. We’re definitely in the incremental improvement stage at this point. Certainly no indication that progress is “accelerating”.
414.
by emp17344 2y ago
It’s unlikely that sensory data contributes to cognitive ability in humans. People with sensory impairments, such as blind people, are not less cognitively capable than people without sensory impairments. Think of Helen Keller, who, despite