laterium

8 ms·

31.
by laterium 1y ago
Industrial machines don't fail like humans yet they replaced human workers. Cars don't fail like horses yet they replaced them. ATMs don't fail like bank tellers... Why is this such a big requirement?
32.
by laterium 1y ago
Basic building blocks are atoms. So, yes same. If you mean cells vs transistors, sure they're different. But we don't have to demonstrate anything to know that nature already made conscious intelligent AGI without it itself not un
33.
by laterium 1y ago
Why would it have to be a 1 to 1 replication? Isn't that a strawman argument? NNs can basically store the collective of knowledge of humanity in that miniscule amount of neurons. NNs also run at much much higher frequency than human br
34.
by laterium 1y ago
What makes you think you can understand the subjective experience of LLMs then? It's out of reach of science, so the only way is to ask them? How can you be sure they don't have subjective experience? Remember that you forbade you
35.
by laterium 1y ago
Because LLMs don't have this special quality that you call "awareness", then they cannot have "cognition", neither of which you defined? This is along the lines of "There must be something special with my mind
36.
by laterium 1y ago
that's half of a comment
37.
by laterium 1y ago
Alphafold and protein folding.
38.
by laterium 1y ago
Transformers do just fine on many deterministic tasks, and are not necessarily probabilistic. This is not the issue at all. So, it's hard for everyone else because they're not confidently wrong like you are.
39.
by laterium 1y ago
How much compute does simulating the earth for 4.7 billion years at atomic precision take? Why would that be more efficient than current approaches? Evolutionary algorithms work but are extremely inefficient, we don't have the compute
40.
by laterium 1y ago
Why is retraining not allowed in this scenario? Yes, the model will know the breakthrough if you retrain. If you force the weights to stay static by fiat, then sure it's harder for them to learn, and will need go learn in-context or wh
41.
by laterium 1y ago
It already IS ubiquitous. What is the path to non-ubiquity then? Most people are depending on it in many personal contexts. A lot of people are even using it in their jobs whether others agree with it or not. Everyday it's becoming mor
42.
by laterium 1y ago
It's not better as demonstrated by the revealed preferences of a vast majority of the users. People DO want algorithmic feeds and NOT chronological feeds. It's a common narrative here that everyone wants chronological feeds, but i
43.
by laterium 1y ago
The real cost will matter at least from an allocation perspective. You can't keep relying on a treatment that costs $100m even if the patient pays nothing. Someone needs to pay that cost.
44.
by laterium 1y ago
How do you learn how and when to use AI if you never use it? Just wait another decade to see what others do? Like Kodak and digital photography?
45.
by laterium 1y ago
Why is the hope that value is proportional to wage being removed and not increased productivity? The problem with this thinking is it already assumes an AGI/ASI replacing all work, rather than a force multiplier like with industrializa
46.
by laterium 1y ago
As a follow-up, how would this workflow feel if the LLM generation were instantenous or cost nothing? What would the new bottleneck be? Running the tests? Network speed? The human reviewer?
47.
by laterium 1y ago
Not what I said at all. Question it all what you want. But disproving outrageous CEO claims doesn't get you there. Whether LLMs are AGI/ASI that will replace everyone is seperate from whether they are useful today as tools. Attack
48.
by laterium 1y ago
It's a new technology which lends itself well to outrageous claims and marketing, but the analogy stands. The CEOs don't get to define the narrative or stand as strawman targets for anti-AI folks to dunk on, sorry. Elon has been r
49.
by laterium 1y ago
They are lying, because their salary depends on them lying about it. Why does it even matter what they're saying? Why don't we listen to scientists, researchers, practicioners and the real users of the technology and stop repeatin
50.
by laterium 1y ago
Why is the bar for it to do your job or completely replace you? It's a tool. If it makes you 5% better at your job, then great. There's a recent study showing it has 15-20% productivity benefits: not completely useless, not 10x. I