kilgnad

29 ms·

271.
by kilgnad 4y ago
No I'm with you. I don't want something more. But it is utterly clear to me that the possibility that it is something more cannot be simply dismissed. Literally what I'm seeing is society produces something that is able to pa
272.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Pfft more useless text written by a giant pile of atoms. Pointless. Kidding aside, in the current context of human communication etiquette, to even refer to something as atoms outside of a demonstration or example is a deliberate dismissive
273.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I think it's obvious. ChatGPT could be a precursor to a future AI that is more intelligent then humans. I don't think this means skynet apocalypse. I think this means most people will be out of a job. A lot of people on HN take a
274.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Except the paper in the OPs comment literally talks about how these LLM's are building actual models of the real world. Literally. The root parent post links a research paper that categorically falsifies your statement. No need to be w
275.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Ok let me make this more clear. I choose how to view things, yes this is true. But if I choose to treat human beings as jumbles of molecules, most people would consider that viewpoint flawed, inaccurate and slightly insane. Other humans wou
276.
by kilgnad 4y ago
YES.
277.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I agree. It is reasonable to fear. I'm more emphasizing how fear effects our perception of reality and causes us to behave irrationally. There's a difference between facing and acknowledging your fears versus running away and delu
278.
by kilgnad 4y ago
It's clearly early technology, so it's not perfect. But what it is able to get right is clear proof it's more then what you think: https://www.engraved.blog/building-a-virtual-machine-inside/ Read to the
279.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Well you're just a jumble of electrons and protons interacting with each other. That's a 100% true interpretation is it not? It's also a view that misses the point that you are a molecular intelligence made of DNA that contin
280.
by kilgnad 4y ago
There is no rule that implies the explicit design dominates the emergent effect. Evolutionary biology strives to make us logical creatures to fulfill the singular goal of passing on genetic material. Your sentience and your humanity is a si
281.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I didn't say it's not a probabilistic word generator. I'll quote more of what I wrote: >There are clearly different angles of interpreting what these models are actually doing but people are stubbornly refusing to believe
282.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Finally I'm tired of people saying it's just a probabilistic word generator and downplaying everything as if they know. If you said something along these lines before... then these papers show that you're not fully grasping t
283.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>You can build "product types with recursive values" in any language that remotely descends from C or Algol. You cut off the part where I said sum AND product types. Variant and union are post C++11 and not traditionally part o
284.
by kilgnad 4y ago
No C++ is considered systems software. I largely agree with you, except on the fact that C++ is an outlier in systems software. It's only an outlier for GNU linux.
285.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Wrong. The model CAN be characterized as a strategy. Why? Because there are better strategies that can be executed. A model is just a description, a strategy is a method for winning. Some methods are better then others. Given zero informati
286.
by kilgnad 4y ago
It is saying a lot because no other language offers that combination of performance and high level abstraction. The speed of C++ with high level language features of haskell. And none of the safety pitfalls of C++ either. That's a lot.
287.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Rust is the bastard child of C++ and Haskell. So it doesn't have the simplicity of C, it tries to give you as many abstractions as possible while still maintaining the zero cost philosophy. I would say Rust is easier then C++ and easie
288.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Rust is immutable by default. You have to deliberately opt in for mutability. When you don't opt in to mutability the programming styles are very similar at a basic level. First the type system is very similar with the capability of bu
289.
by kilgnad 4y ago
It is a 1:1 mapping to physical bubbles. Like soap bubbles. I never said the bubble implies the underlying asset has no value. The bubble encases the difference in value and current value. The bubble does not encase the actual asset. When a
290.
by kilgnad 4y ago
I know what you mean but the word "bubble" implies no value. A bubble is mostly empty space of no value, the surface of the bubble hides the emptiness. When the bubble pop as it inevitably does the emptiness is exposed. The meanin
291.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Am I not allowed to make an independent comparison unless the OP made the same comparison?
292.
by kilgnad 4y ago
chatGPT is more then a bubble. It's a societal inflection point. The reaction to it is appropriate. However as usual people will get too excited and the hype will outpace the actuality of the technology. There will be a slight "bu
293.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Wow. Pretty amazing that chatGPT knows how to use Google.
294.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Just a month ago you would get voted down for saying chatGPT understands the queries you are giving it and is more then just an AI that parrots everything you tell it. Now we are hitting an inflection point. People are realizing chatGPT is
295.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>This is a very strong claim. "Any human" includes even the smallest children. "Nobody" precludes any one. All we have to do to prove your claim false is to find a single human who won't do as you said, which is
296.
by kilgnad 4y ago
How would I implement algorithmic trading at home? And would this be a viable idea if I knew what I was doing? Has anyone done this successfully?
297.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Right, and you asked for a list and they gave it to you. No I didn't. I asked how do you make a sandwich. The answer doesn't have to be in list form. The child chooses to give me the answer in list form. Your question, however
298.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Haskell can do lazy evaluation because it was explicitly designed by scholars to specifically study lazy evaluation. You can have a functional strictly evaluated language. It's not key to the paradigm. The point I made here is hask
299.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Another link for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/news Llms (the exact same architecture as chatGPT) trained to use calculators. Tell me which one requires "understanding". Learning how to use a calculator or lea
300.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Uh, what?... Your attempt to trivialize it doesn't make any sense. It's like watching someone try to trivialize the moon landing. "Oh all we did was put a bunch of people in some metal cylinder then light the tail end on

More ›