hackinthebochs

4 ms·

1.
by hackinthebochs 8d ago
The danger when making decisions on behalf of other people is in imagining yourself in their position, rather than imagining them in their position. So you have a happy fulfilled life, you have the kinds of human relationships that provid
2.
by hackinthebochs 9d ago
My concern isn't mainly about addiction and vices, its more about a loss of meaning and being adrift in an alien world. The addiction/vices are just what one falls into when your life becomes devoid of meaning. I think the mental
3.
by hackinthebochs 9d ago
I agree the application of the logic doesn't end with isolated populations. The relevant difference is that those brought up in the modern world have/had the potential to engage with knowledge of addiction and other vices, and dec
4.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
If you have something to contribute to the discussion, just say it
5.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
>If that were true, we should have seen LLMs play good chess by now. Not at all. LLMs learn by imbibing a mass of relationships as isolated fragments of information. There is a certain amount of sorting and indexing that happens during t
6.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
This is not good reasoning. Humans need at least dozens if not hundreds of reinforcement sessions to only make legal moves, and still occasionally fail (consider pins, discovered check, failing to respond to check). LLMs must one-shot a com
7.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
So you weren't giving it an updated board state after every move? If you want to compare apples to apples, it should give an updated board state for each move, or you should play blindfolded.
8.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
> generally read the rules of a game and then follow them How many times do you think chess.com prevents illegal moves from being executed? Even Super GM's fall for mate-in-1's occasionally, which is functionally equivalent to
9.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
It is interesting, but people are drawing the wrong conclusion from it. For one, LLMs don't go through a "chess learning phase". They're not analyzing a board as they're learning the rules or studying games to creat
10.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
We're obviously using different meanings for "good" here. But aside from that, it took 100's to 1000's of reinforcement iterations for your brother to play competently. While certainly impressive, that is still an e
11.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
>Where is all the training and practice LLMs did to become so good at coding? Coding is a matter of translating the natural language description of a problem to the code specification while keeping the semantics fixed (and imputing the u
12.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
We're not talking about learning the rules of chess here, but playing a competent game from just being shown the rules. Why is it so hard for people to keep track of the thread of discussion?
13.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
I'd genuinely like to see the results of that.
14.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
No, but superhuman capabilities derived from ordinary learning is, which is what the parent comment described. Why is that not obvious?
15.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
I would bet a lot of money that Astra can follow the rules of chess (perhaps if repeated within the context window). Also, this is a different argument than what I responded to.
16.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
And how many years of direct play and study does it take for a human to get good at chess or any other game? Absolutely no human ever could be good at chess just by reading a few books, or even every book on chess. That's just not how
17.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
>LLM can’t beat an avg chess player. Why should that matter?
18.
by hackinthebochs 10d ago
But they're not equipped to decide whether they want it or not. It's like offering drugs to children saying they can choose if they want it. Children simply aren't equipped to make that decision, neither are people in these p
19.
by hackinthebochs 11d ago
It's also immoral to expose isolated populations to all manner of the modern world's vices, optimized to be maximally addictive and maximally extractive, for which they have zero defense or even knowledge of their dangers.
20.
by hackinthebochs 12d ago
Prove is a strong word. But it supports the existence of the condition as it coheres with our scientific models of visual experience. You can always reach for obscure philosophical puzzles about phenomenal experience to try to invalidate th
21.
by hackinthebochs 12d ago
It's a real phenomena. Mental imagery corresponds to voluntary activation of the visual cortex[1]. The quality of the self-reported imagery corresponds to the degree of activity in the visual cortex[2] while imagining some visual scene
22.
by hackinthebochs 17d ago
>pacing between the us labs? what does that do for china? I've seen no indications that China is in any kind of race with the US. They seem to be content to be 6 months behind and just copy what we do. They would probably be content
23.
by hackinthebochs 17d ago
>endless abundance of solutions and ideas cannot coexist with a healthy society. This really cuts to the heart of the problem with AI. Not only does AI undermine the monetary economy, it undermines the intellectual economy. What is human
24.
by hackinthebochs 17d ago
Yes, reasoning with models and making inferences are perfectly acceptable forms of evidence. But you can model the world based on ones knowledge and experience and infer when some event doesn't fit the typical pattern, then form belief
25.
by hackinthebochs 18d ago
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow without "evidence" (again, narrowly construed). We all do. It's only those who abuse the idea of epistemic hygiene who claim otherwise, usually with ulterior motives.
26.
by hackinthebochs 18d ago
It is not reasonable to not believe anything unless there is "evidence" (narrowly construed as an observation incompatible with the negation of some state of affairs). Beliefs have a wide spectrum of characterizations, and not all
27.
by hackinthebochs 18d ago
If you're betting the farm on there being a wall on the current trajectory of LLMs, I suggest you hedge that bet.
28.
by hackinthebochs 18d ago
I would say most people do in fact need a life of purpose and fulfillment through some aim larger than themselves that has intrinsic value, can reinforce self worth, etc. I think very few people will find purpose and fulfillment through and
29.
by hackinthebochs 20d ago
We could also just stop research into LLMs. Or keep them air gapped. Tell me how that's going? For any real-world action required to allow an AI to escape some manner of containment, there will always be a person willing to do it out o
30.
by hackinthebochs 21d ago
>without an actual understanding of what they're doing. At what point do you start to question your assumptions that are causing you so much cognitive dissonance? But to answer your question: to predict the next token really well yo

More ›