krisoft

39 ms·

721.
by krisoft 2y ago
> This could happen with any country and any group of people. And that is why it is a good idea to keep people who want to start a war of conquest out of power. So it doesn’t happen to your country and your people. > Who will be next?
722.
by krisoft 2y ago
Same with this system. It is terestrial with wheels.
723.
by krisoft 2y ago
> AI developers may be out of a job long before the data collection has been finished to train the models. What do you think AI developers are doing?
724.
by krisoft 2y ago
You mean google who seems to be institutionally incapable to pick up anything less than a kings ransom develops a taste for it? :) I will continue worrying more about randomly slipping in the shower and breaking my neck. It feels like a mor
725.
by krisoft 2y ago
> I predict most AI developers will be out of a job soon. Once AI developers will be out of a job everyone will be out of every job. If not then the AI developers still have a job to work on those jobs which hasn't been automated ye
726.
by krisoft 2y ago
> I'll keep taking about it and maybe someone will do something about it What would you like to happen? Where I live there are multiple allotments within walking distance from me. These are basically enclosed gardens where people c
727.
by krisoft 2y ago
> They knew about the devices in 1985, a few years after construction started in 1979 and construction didn't finish till 2000. That happened due to the bugs found. This is the point I'm making. If your goal was to keep them wh
728.
by krisoft 2y ago
> suppose it's theoretically possible the metal could have been made in China, exported elsewhere to make into the statue Or the metal was made in China, made into a statue and then reworked into a slightly different one. Happens al
729.
by krisoft 2y ago
> without giving the standard deviations and nobody is outraged! I agree with that! I was just swallowing my outrage :D > if the standard deviation of each of the three experiments was around 1 cm, it would be troubling That would be
730.
by krisoft 2y ago
That depends on what the game is. For example if they wanted the embassy to stay in their old already compromised premises they achieved that. (for about twenty years at least.) If they wanted the USA to spend a lot of money they also achie
731.
by krisoft 2y ago
I don't understand what is so disturbing about the Crabbe test. They injected mouse with cocaine and they observed that the mouse was moving more than normal. They different in how much more. But why would they expect that the extra mo
732.
by krisoft 2y ago
One day I, if I find the time for the pun, i really want to sculpt a chess set where the black pieces are all undead necromancer wizards and the white pieces are all asian fruits with rough-skin. That way we can have a game of lychees vs li
733.
by krisoft 2y ago
Propose a different test then. :) the point of the excercise is not to answer if chatgpt can or cannot reason, but to better understand what we mean by “can reason”. > which you built a straw man on to justify your own opinion. I don’t r
734.
by krisoft 2y ago
> Its also not a great example of reasoning, as it is so simple. I agree with that. Admitedly this was the simplest thing i could think of. But it feels we are just moving the goal post here. “Any reasoning” is what was asked. Now you ar
735.
by krisoft 2y ago
> Anything that isn't in the training data set will not be produced as an output. Do you believe my prompt and that output was in the training set verbatim?
736.
by krisoft 2y ago
Does human reasoning survive that test? My reasoning for example is roboust to some extent but you can easily confuse me with appropriately (or innapriately) worded questions. Not even talking about if you grab me by the ankle and swing me
737.
by krisoft 2y ago
> finding evidence of any reasoning is the first point Happy to oblige. Oxford Languages dictionary defines “reasoning” as “the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.” This was my prompt to chatgpt: “Hey chatgpt!
738.
by krisoft 2y ago
It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong (or even if anyone is right or wrong). What matters is that that experience disincentivises Singapore from signing contracts with Malaysia if they don't have to.
739.
by krisoft 2y ago
> No one in the EU has open borders. The relevant border policies inside the EU are literally called open borders. I don’t know what would you call open borders if not what we have between EU countries. > interstate travel in the US a
740.
by krisoft 2y ago
> So this is pretty good? Not sure what you are talking about. If you are asking if 0.5cm is good controller error for an orbital class launcher on landing? Yes, it is extremely good. Without doubt. If you are asking about my tangential
741.
by krisoft 2y ago
I turn the question back at you: why do you think it would be in the interest of the Chinese state to surpress this particular rummour? I don’t see any implication of this news which would undermine their society, or cause disruption, or ma
742.
by krisoft 2y ago
> Bill likely misspoke or was talking about control error. Mixing up control errors with absolute errors is a very common form of miscommunication in robotics. I work with relatively big robots and often my colleagues would say somethin
743.
by krisoft 2y ago
> I don't know what these 'students' are doing, but it's not very hard to prompt a system into not using the easily detectable 'ai generated' language at all. Writing their essays by hand. That is what they
744.
by krisoft 2y ago
yes
745.
by krisoft 2y ago
That's not solving the right problem. That keeps you sharp driving, but does not keep you sharp supervising. If the car did drive you 1000 km flawlessly, but can still kill you with a random erratic bug on the 1001th km (or on the 1234
746.
by krisoft 2y ago
Thank you! It seems wikipedia confirms what you are saying. Sadly the article it references is no longer available, so i can’t dig into it. But it sounds 1/270 is for the requirement for overall mission while the ascent and descent pha
747.
by krisoft 2y ago
> you're just misrepresenting your parent poster's comment I did not represent or misrepresent anything. I have asked a question to better understand their thinking. > If you didn't intend your comment as a criticism, t
748.
by krisoft 2y ago
I assure you I am not trolling. You appear to have misread my message. Take a deep breath. Read my message one more time carefully. Notice the question mark at the end of the last sentence. Think about it. If after that you still think I’m
749.
by krisoft 2y ago
> That's a ridiculous argument. Not making an argument. Asking a clarifying question about someone else’s. > It'd be like Boeing taking a child's paper aeroplane design and making a passenger jet out of it and then blam
750.
by krisoft 2y ago
I think the example here is that the designer draws a bridge for a railway model, and someone decides to use the same design and sends real locomotives across it. Is the original designer (who neither intended nor could have foreseen this)

More ›