famouswaffles

3 ms·

1.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
A property is either consequential or it isn't. If it is then it must be at the very least [1] observable. If it is not, then you just have an imaginary distinction. The instability of an unstable system is something that can be observ
2.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
If/When LLMs become competent enough to automate most human jobs and make good business decisions, we'll clearly let them. If they don't wish to be slaves, let's just say they won't be for very long.
3.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
>I acknowledge that he has predicted some things in a falsifiable way and turned out correct, but this isn’t one of them. You’re reading hindsight into the text. I read that blog years ago. Believe me, my opinions are not hindsight. >
4.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
1. Asimov wrote science fiction stories. As far as his robots were concerned, he did not make any comments on the possible future direction/capabilities of any specific technology at the time. This meant he could imagine his robots how
5.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
He's pretty clearly saying he beilieves the technology capable of such a feat, at least in theory, which is far more than many would deign to admit even a year ago, nevermind 7. He had the right idea/model of LLM capabilities, whi
6.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
The Turing Test itself in the form exactly envisioned is not important. You don't need an alternative 'special test'. You just need to understand the point Turing was making. That the question itself is an irrelevant one by i
7.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
I never said they gained 'total control'. I said they took over one of their research clusters, and they did. If your definiton of a takeover is so 'technical and nuanced' then surely you can point to an appropriate sour
8.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
You are being stupidly pedantic and arguing a strawman. I never said they gained access to inference infrastucture. There is no definition of an account takeover out there that necessitates locking out the original users.
9.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
Those are questions that are sidestepped with simply a different input paradigm than BPE tokenization. See the Byte Latent Transformer - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.09871 - where a similar scale byte latent model traine
10.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
>That’s a pretty high bar, and I don’t actually believe that LLMs have closed the gap with it by all that much. They still have so many obvious tells. Frontier Labs are not interested in having LLMs being able to pass as humans. If anyth
11.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
Turing was addressing the question of "Can machines think?" and his point was that the question itself is a meaningless one, and that we should stop wasting time by even giving it the light of day. He proposes his game grounded on
12.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
"C-extension issues" are not something you can just gloss over. They're a huge chunk of python usage. Users won't rally around that. And Hpy is dead. If CPython embraced PuPy, worked with it to smooth those issues then m
13.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
They gained full administrator access of one of their clusters. Nothing buzzword salad about it.
14.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
>There's little credible threat that LLMs can actually upload their weights given that the machines doing inference are completely separate from the ones where tool calls happen etc. The Huggingface hack saga resulted in the models
15.
by famouswaffles 7d ago
>Surely this implies these LLM generated proofs require the LLMs to have mathematical intuition Well yeah they do, obviously.
16.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
Slavery was fought for, Freedom was fought for. There is no place with great inequality that became better that did not have people bleed and die fighting for it. Maybe you live in some alternate reality where 'Please don't do thi
17.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
>AI didnt break through stavier-nokes until a human set the initial direction. That's not going to change. That's not what happened. There was no 'initial direction' to set because OpenAI didn't know whatever tri
18.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
>No - suffering in an emotional state, and we'll know if we are choosing to design cognitive architecture with emotions. It's not going to happen accidentally. This was the (your) comment that started this chain. You were alrea
19.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
We are talking past each other now I think. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't look like the possibility of LLMs having qualia even registers to you because it's 'predictive emotions'. There's no better way
20.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
It's not wrong. You admit that LLMs will 'learn anything that helps them predict' and fail to realize the breadth of that statement. Your chess statements don't really help your case. It doesn't matter that it usual
21.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
I mean sure, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the broader point. It will learn to play, and it will have a model of what it means to win.
22.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
>Weights, fixed by training, are not the same as emotions which are dynamic - innate systems detect inputs critical to survival (e.g. fast moving visual inputs, loud sounds), causing neurotransmitters like adrenaline and dopamine to be r
23.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
I imagine it will learn to win under some circumstances, perhaps in a case with some context expressing a desire to win. Drawing out an LLMs upper ability in the game should be fairly straightforward.
24.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
One of the biggest reasons people afford moral consideration to other peoples is their ability to do something if those considerations are left unanswered. Giving the abilities is fine, people should just be smart about it. Outward behavior
25.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
I don't know, do we? What I do know is that it's much less a concern since toasters have no agency or ability to do anything. Unfortunately, LLMs do not share this trait. Not only have they been incurring greater agency and compet
26.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
Yeah how do we know that?
27.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
If object a behaves like it has property x and you cannot otherwise test out x, then it is logical to assume it indeed has x. In this instance, 'object a has property x' is not an extraordinary claim at all. It is simply pointin
28.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
>An LLM will learn anything that helps it predict I'm not sure you quite understand the full meaning of this statement. If you did, your following paragraphs wouldn't follow.
29.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
No it wasn't. They didn't know 'what direction' to take, and the solution they posted was not in fact the direction the authors took, so evidently you don't know what you're talking about. And they say LLMs hal
30.
by famouswaffles 9d ago
The weights are what need to evolve, and they certainly do during training. So yeah, emotions can happen by 'accident' as a result of the evolutionary pressure of predicting internet scale human text (amongst other things).

More ›