emp17344

10 ms·

181.
by emp17344 8mo ago
That’s a devastating benchmark design flaw. Sick of these bullshit benchmarks designed solely to hype AI. AI boosters turn around and use them as ammo, despite not understanding them.
182.
by emp17344 8mo ago
This is incorrect. It’s basic economics - technology that boosts productivity results in higher salaries and more jobs.
183.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Or, AI will turn out to just not be that useful.
184.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Productivity improvements from automation actually result in an increase in jobs, not fewer jobs. Basic economics.
185.
by emp17344 8mo ago
We’re literally at the point where trillions of dollars have been invested in these things and the surrounding harnesses and architecture, and they still can’t do economically useful work on their own. You’re way too bullish here.
186.
by emp17344 8mo ago
What’s your point? Yes, humans fail sometimes, as do AI models. Are you trying to imply that, in light of this, AI is now as capable as human beings? If so, that conclusion doesn’t follow logically.
187.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Is this capability “emergent”, or do AI firms specifically target SVG generation in order to improve it? How would we be able to tell?
188.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Remember when ARC 1 was basically solved, and then ARC 2 (which is even easier for humans) came out, and all of the sudden the same models that were doing well on ARC 1 couldn’t even get 5% on ARC 2? Not convinced these benchmark improvemen
189.
by emp17344 8mo ago
The complete lack of skepticism in the AI space is sickening. Are all economic bubbles this annoying?
190.
by emp17344 8mo ago
The thesis of Bullshit Jobs is almost universally rejected by economists, FYI. There’s not much of value to obtain from the book.
191.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Gradient descent is not a magic wand that makes computers behave like anything you want. The difference is still quite perceptible after several years and trillions of dollars in R&D, and there’s no reason to believe it’ll get much bett
192.
by emp17344 8mo ago
The internet is a post-truth space now that you can spin up a million different agents to push whatever narrative you choose.
193.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Similarly, “it must be intelligent because it talks” is a fallacious claim, as indicated by ELIZA. I think Moltbook adequately demonstrates that AI model behavior is not analogous to human behavior. Compare Moltbook to Reddit, and the forme
194.
by emp17344 8mo ago
An unconscious machine + billions of dollars in marketing with the sole purpose of making people believe these things are alive.
195.
by emp17344 8mo ago
> A small child's cognition is also "just" electrochemical signals propagating through neural tissue according to physical laws! This is a thought-terminating cliche employed to avoid grappling with the overwhelming differ
196.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Would you say the same about ELIZA? Moltbook demonstrates that AI models simply do not engage in behavior analogous to human behavior. Compare Moltbook to Reddit and the difference should be obvious.
197.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Sure, but Moltbook demonstrates that AI models do not engage in truly coordinated behavior. They simply do not behave the way real humans do on social media sites - the actual behavior can be differentiated.
198.
by emp17344 8mo ago
This place is shockingly uncritical when it comes to LLMs. Not sure why.
199.
by emp17344 8mo ago
These are language models, not Skynet. They do not scheme or deceive.
200.
by emp17344 8mo ago
This type of anthropomorphization is a mistake. If nothing else, the takeaway from Moltbook should be that LLMs are not alive and do not have any semblance of consciousness.
201.
by emp17344 8mo ago
You should be more skeptical of marketing releases like this. This is an advertisement.
202.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Some of these were initially hyped as novel solutions, and then were quietly downgraded after it was discovered the solutions weren’t actually novel.
203.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Cynically, I wonder if this was released at this time to ward off any criticism from the failure of LLMs to solve the 1stproof problems.
204.
by emp17344 8mo ago
I mean, remember when ARC 1 was basically solved, and then ARC 2 (which is even easier for humans) came out, and all of the sudden the same models that were doing well on ARC 1 couldn’t even get 5% on ARC 2? Not convinced this isn’t data le
205.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Absolutely. It’s this exact confusion that leads to AI psychosis, and it’s monstrous that these companies encourage it.
206.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Absolutely. I think this was explicitly demonstrated by Moltbook, where one agent would post word-salad garbage and every other agent would respond “You’re exactly right! So true!”
207.
by emp17344 8mo ago
>the multiplier effect of AI is being used to reduce head count more than to drastically increase net output of a team This simply isn’t how economics works. There is always additional demand, especially in the software space. Every othe
208.
by emp17344 8mo ago
And they still rely on human operators for some maneuvers, as we learned this week.
209.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Come on, people. This has been debunked a million times. See this Language Log post for thorough takedown of this BS: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=17970
210.
by emp17344 8mo ago
Many people are convinced that we’re all going to die next year after these things achieve sentience. Can’t wait to see the goalpost shifting when AI 2027 doesn’t pan out.

More ›