hackinthebochs

7 ms·

91.
by hackinthebochs 3mo ago
Thanks for replying. I can see your point of view.
92.
by hackinthebochs 3mo ago
>I believe they belong here as much as I do. This sentiment is just so utterly foreign to me that I can't comprehend how someone could rationally think this way. I mean, I'm a black man whose ancestors have lived in America sin
93.
by hackinthebochs 3mo ago
Not in my experience, at least not at the national level. It's been said that Obama deported more illegals than anyone that came before. But Democrats couldn't run on that record because it was toxic to the progressives.
94.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
That's not how nerds think. You can believe there's a high chance of what you're working on being dangerous and still be unable to stop working on it. As Oppenheimer put it, "when you see something that is technically sw
95.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>But why does engaging with negative valence, planning, and weighing actions against other interests require subjective experience? I have a few different answers here. None are rock solid. Lets take it as a given that planning requires
96.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>But this isn't true! It has been repeatedly shown that patients without inner brain function react to stimuli (such as being pinched or pricked with a needle) by recoiling from the pain, as do babies with no experience of pain. Yes
97.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
Presumably the question you're asking is why does a unified self representation require consciousness. (Split brain cases are easy examples of how a break in unification results in incoherent behavior.) The brain nominally performs fun
98.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
My usage of gestalt isn't without precedent[1]. I like gestalt better than qualia as a neutral description of the explanandum. Qualia is an atomistic view of consciousness and so is heavily theory-laden. I had just read a comment from
99.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
Try sending an email to their contact address (bottom of page). Unless there's a good reason your comments are being auto killed, they will fix it.
100.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
> It seems difficult to claim that the computational process that implements this has any more or less of a gestalt then one multiplying two matrices together. So it's not just the existence of certain representations or computation
101.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
Seems like a rather ad hoc restriction. The issue is one of inferring the structure of the processes generating the output. I suppose given enough time and an adversarial style of interaction one could in principle determine the computation
102.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>Are you arguing that with a set of identically-behaving black boxes, one could be "reasoning" and one could be "not reasoning", and a person would need to look inside the boxes at how they function to decide? Absolut
103.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
What it's like - the gestalt of a bat (or other thing) as it engages its sensing-deciding-reacting loop. This gestalt isn't just for biological organisms, but any system for which its decision making engages with representations o
104.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>I say they're equivalent because it is possible to losslessly convert one to the other by wasting massive amounts of disk space and time. There is a classical algorithm for every quantum algorithm if you're willing to waste a
105.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
That paper doesn't prove the equivalence of Transformers and Markov chains, it uses Markov chains as a theoretical model to understand the behavior of Transforms. The expressivity of the model matters, and Transformers just are more ex
106.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>In other words, a Markov chain and a Transformer model are exactly equivalent in power Nonsense. Markov chains treat the past context as a single unit, an N-tuple with no internal structure. LLMs leverage the internal structure of the c
107.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>The point is that the output is text that is statistically correlated with the input. But we can simply note that this description applies to any machine learning algorithm. Yet LLMs are lightyears better than, say, Markov chains. What
108.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>At all times the LLM is, indeed, predicting the next token The point is that saying they're just "predicting the next token" is not at all explanatory nor providing insight. Saying the brain is just firing action potentia
109.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>I don't think there is anything in a transformer I couldn't explain in the smallest detail now. If you're up for it I would love to know how and why positional encodings work
110.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>We have a lot of tools that can determine the frequency of light and I can use those on any source of light that I wish to measure that may hit my retinas. Yes, which is why I said naturally distinguish. Have you asked a frontier mode
111.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>There is no agreed upon definition of consciousness No one genuinely engaged with the topic is confused about the target of the term (phenomenal) consciousness. Definitions come once the theoretical work is complete, to be articulated a
112.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
>That they operate by tokens that don't correspond to words or letters is irrelevant as an answer to why they can't count the letters in a word. This interpretation takes things too far away from how LLMs are constituted and so
113.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
Of course for humans words have no inherent meaning either, they're just sequences of characters or patterns of sounds. It is what words are associated with that carries meaning. A large part of this is how words relate to other words.
114.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
I wish people would do even the most basic amount of research into LLMs before opining about what they can or cannot do. There are very principled reasons why LLMs do not know how many letters are in words, and it says nothing about their f
115.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
> I think there is a flaw in the logic of saying that human text have a pattern of "consciousness mechanism" and therefore LLM will learn "consciousness mechanism" in order to return sentence continuation that is conv
116.
by hackinthebochs 4mo ago
The parent said it, it's a historical document about events and beliefs of people that shaped most of the modern world. I was never one for history, but as I've gotten older I've come to appreciate history as a study of the p
117.
by hackinthebochs 5mo ago
No DEI industry you say? https://web.archive.org/web/20240710195414/https://time.com/... >The lucrative industry shows few signs of waning–from the spike in well-compensated diversity consultants
118.
by hackinthebochs 5mo ago
Also see: https://people.csail.mit.edu/renda/llm-sampling-paper
119.
by hackinthebochs 5mo ago
Far more mundane that whatever bogeyman you imagine, it will discuss things like COVID origins or not treat favored classes as a special case e.g. when asked to make a joke.
120.
by hackinthebochs 5mo ago
For conversational or general knowledge questions I also much prefer Grok. Musk's vanity aside, it is much less censored than the other frontier models.

More ›