emp17344

7 ms·

91.
by emp17344 5mo ago
I thought the whole idea behind LLMs is that they exhibit emergent behavior beyond the data they ingest. This makes the reductionist view untenable.
92.
by emp17344 5mo ago
What? You sound like a cartoon villain. What’s wrong with you?
93.
by emp17344 5mo ago
The contempt you people have for your fellow human beings is palpable. Your point is obfuscated because your objective seems to be to degrade others.
94.
by emp17344 5mo ago
I bet get I could hit 1000x output of random characters produced by smashing my hand against the keyboard.
95.
by emp17344 5mo ago
But… RL doesn’t scale that well. It’s not the silver bullet you think it is.
96.
by emp17344 5mo ago
He’s describing idealism, which is a philosophically valid position to hold, and one which is gaining popularity. I’m guessing the majority of HN strongly leans towards physicalism in the philosophy of mind debate, which may be why you seem
97.
by emp17344 5mo ago
Currently that self-improving system isn’t so self-improving that it’s become better at any particular job than human beings, so I think the skepticism is warranted.
98.
by emp17344 5mo ago
It can’t do that, because it isn’t conscious ;)
99.
by emp17344 5mo ago
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IHLIDXUSTPSOFTDEVE The chart is continuously updated, and postings are still on the rise as of last week. Your criticism is moot.
100.
by emp17344 5mo ago
Just go look at the chart: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IHLIDXUSTPSOFTDEVE It’s continuously updated, and postings are still on the rise as of last week, so your criticism doesn’t make much sense.
101.
by emp17344 5mo ago
Minor shifts in productivity are hard to measure. Major jumps in productivity would be obvious. I think it’s clear that, if AI is affecting productivity, it’s to a minor degree at best.
102.
by emp17344 5mo ago
Even idiots can succeed if you uncritically funnel them hundreds of billions of dollars.
103.
by emp17344 5mo ago
They’re idiots who hacked together a shockingly useful tool by leveraging the billions of dollars they received from shamelessly hyping up chatbots. The Claude Code leak makes this very clear.
104.
by emp17344 5mo ago
But it’s actively unhelpful in explaining the phenomenon, as there is no justification for equivocating LLM and human behavior. It’s just confusing and misleading.
105.
by emp17344 6mo ago
Say what you will about humans, but they are absolutely capable of working autonomously. That’s what jobs are.
106.
by emp17344 6mo ago
We don’t have agents that are able to work entirely autonomously, even in the coding realm, which is where they seem to be most valuable. In fact, they’re seemingly not even close to replacing software engineers.
107.
by emp17344 6mo ago
That is absolutely not what the split brain experiment reveals. Why would you take results received from observing the behavior of a highly damaged brain, and use them to predict the behavior of a healthy brain? Stop spreading misinformatio
108.
by emp17344 6mo ago
Well, hang on a second - it sounds like you may actually disagree with the user who created this thread. That user claims that these systems exhibit “real intelligence”, and success on this Erdos problem is proof. You seem to be making the
109.
by emp17344 6mo ago
But the systems that do that impressive work are no longer just LLMs. Look at the Claude Code leak - it’s a sprawling, redundant maze relying on tools and tests to approximate useful output. The actual LLM is a small portion of the total sy
110.
by emp17344 6mo ago
There are humans who can’t read. That doesn’t mean Grammarly is “intelligent”. These things are tools - nothing more, nothing less.
111.
by emp17344 6mo ago
Presumably these companies on the verge of an IPO don’t want the public to hate them or their product. It wasn’t exactly a calculated maneuver - they made a decision to leverage fear-based marketing and it backfired.
112.
by emp17344 6mo ago
I’ve never heard this guy say anything negative about an AI product. Makes it impossible to trust him.
113.
by emp17344 6mo ago
I think you’re possibly a bit confused… accepting Searle’s intuition on this thought experiment is agreeing with Searle. In light of this, I don’t understand your comment.
114.
by emp17344 6mo ago
Well, yeah… turns out that goal wasn’t a good indicator for AGI, so we re-evaluated. That’s changing your hypothesis in the face of evidence, not “moving the goalposts” in the fallacious sense.
115.
by emp17344 6mo ago
It’s a large survey of academic philosophers on famous philosophical arguments. In this case, the question is asking whether philosophers agree with Searle and believe the Chinese room does not understand Chinese, or disagree with Searle an
116.
by emp17344 6mo ago
You know that Dennett and Hofstadter aren’t the beginning and end of Philosophy of Mind, right? Calling Searle’s Room “complete sophistry” is hilariously misguided, considering the vast majority of academic philosophers consider it valid:
117.
by emp17344 6mo ago
It’s just a classic bubble. They’ve happened before, and while they are irrational, the market sorts itself eventually.
118.
by emp17344 6mo ago
Great, it can compete with the cottage industry dedicated solely to hyping and exaggerating AI performance.
119.
by emp17344 6mo ago
This is quite hostile. Yes, criticism is valid without an accompanying essay detailing every aspect of the associated environment, because these tools are still quite flawed.
120.
by emp17344 6mo ago
Personally, I’m tired of exaggerated claims and hype peddlers. Edit: Frankly, accusing perceived opponents of being too afraid to see the truth is poor argumentative practice, and practically never true.

More ›