martin-t

31 ms·

361.
by martin-t 1y ago
Do you believe intelligence can be achieved using ANNs? If so, ANNs can be serialized, therefore writing is rich enough. It might not be an easy to work with format though. If you believe the broad LLM architecture is capable of reaching tr
362.
by martin-t 1y ago
In a way, yes, you'd be paying the people not just to write down the rules but to discover them first. And there's the accuracy/correctness/interpretability tradeoff. But also, have there been any attempts on the scale o
363.
by martin-t 1y ago
And now wait till you realize it's all built on stolen code written by people like you and me. GOFAI failed because paying intelligent/competent/capable people enough for their time to implement intelligence by writing all th
364.
by martin-t 1y ago
Attention-seeking behaviors (such as an obsession with recording everything and putting it online) are unhealthy and a possible symptom of anti-social traits such as narcissism. Unfortunately for all of us, if public-by-default becomes the
365.
by martin-t 1y ago
The last paragraph feels more wrong the more I think about it. Imagine an AI as smart as some of the smartest humans, able to do everything they intellectually do but much faster, cheaper, 24/7 and in parallel. Why would you spend any
366.
by martin-t 1y ago
> I would love to see an anti-AI take that doesn't hinge on the idea that technology forces people to be lazy/careless/thoughtless. Here's a couple points which are related to each other: 1) LLMs are statistical model
367.
by martin-t 1y ago
People know their neighbors. Consider that the neighbor might have been known to be anti-social instead (e.g. had one of the subtypes of narcissism) and resolving the issue directly was more likely to lead to a satisfactory outcome for both
368.
by martin-t 1y ago
Exactly. People usually know their neighbors enough to know whether they'll get a reasonable response or not. If the neighbor had antisocial personality traits (narcissism is most common), trying to talk to them would only trigger a co
369.
by martin-t 1y ago
The government is emergent behavior of evolutionary pressures. For most of human history, war of aggression was a matter of a cost-benefit analysis which often have more benefit than cost. That has changed (relatively) recently because of h
370.
by martin-t 1y ago
If they can be private indefinitely, then you wouldn't need to keep them secret. These attacks on freedom will continue until every computing device is mandated to have an ML system tracking your every input. And no communication metho
371.
by martin-t 1y ago
I say stupidity should be punished the same way as incompetence. Exactly to stop malicious people from faking incompetence to avoid punishment. And yes, this is an attack on basic human freedoms and should be punished, not just prevented.
372.
by martin-t 1y ago
It's not about people's safety, it's about politicians' safety. See my comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45331829 Of course they don't need to spy on themselves. The goal is to stop targe
373.
by martin-t 1y ago
Assuming there's a tradeoff between safety and privacy (which might be a false dichotomy pushed onto people), I am perfectly fine with the current level of safety. I feel zero need to give up privacy for more safety. I feel: - The most
374.
by martin-t 1y ago
> When a behavior hurts the society the society puts a law against it Laws are passed by politicians, not society. And the more removed they are from actual working people, the more different their incentives are. You and I as members of
375.
by martin-t 1y ago
Not all anti-social behavior is illegal. Most isn't. Say a company operated a short-form video platform, did active research about its effects, knew a large chunk of its user-base were children younger than 6 and knew that the video se
376.
by martin-t 1y ago
Not all immoral, abusive and exploitative acts are illegal. In fact, most are not, because companies have whole legal departments dedicated to figuring out just how they can exploit the system and other people without getting punished legal
377.
by martin-t 1y ago
Crazy idea, how about making non-disparagement clauses illegal? They serve no purpose, other than protecting abusive and exploitative companies. If a disgruntled employee says something that is not true, there are already laws the company c
378.
by martin-t 1y ago
> we are beyond rule of law in America Yes. I wish more people had the balls to say it...
379.
by martin-t 1y ago
> They've since admitted this was a mistake Don't anthropomorphize organizations. It was no longer beneficial for them to openly fight open source so instead the people in charge decided they needed to get developer mindshare b
380.
by martin-t 1y ago
I didn't say it's an abusive employer but an abusive company. It always fought against open source. Embrace, extend, extinguish. It always stifled innovation. Internet Explorer 6. And now, it bought GitHub and then plagiarized all
381.
by martin-t 1y ago
And this is how corrupt abusive companies can keep thriving. People will tell you "vote with your feet" from their high horse but it just doesn't work. These companies will always find somebody else to fill that role. The per
382.
by martin-t 1y ago
So how to get these people punished? How do you punish people who are completely and utterly above the law?
383.
by martin-t 1y ago
AFAIK two effects were immediate. 1) Some CEOs stopped posting their photos and other information online, clearly understanding they too could become targets and somewhat lowering the social prestige of that position. 2) One insurance compa
384.
by martin-t 1y ago
Almost all power is like that. Power comes from the ability to do violence (or threaten/imply it) and there's only so much guns and ammo you can carry. Not to mention the attacker has the advantage here and full-body ballistic pro
385.
by martin-t 1y ago
Revolution simply rolls the dice again. In states which used to have functional institutions and the organizational memory is still present, they can lead to good outcomes. In states which never had them, they cannot be created out of thin
386.
by martin-t 1y ago
Not often mentioned but violence is the greatest enemy of people in power. They always say stuff like "violence doesn't belong in politics", "violence is always wrong". But look at the French revolution, they had to
387.
by martin-t 1y ago
I am perfectly OK with the current level of crime and the current level of freedom. In fact, I'd be OK with slightly more crime in exchange for more freedom. Truth is the police often don't even act on the crimes that are provable
388.
by martin-t 1y ago
> good intention or have good goals People need to understand that some people are abusers by nature and mentality, some from birth, some by upbringing. And they crave power. The sayings like "those who want power rarely deserve it&
389.
by martin-t 1y ago
Why do you call them "leaders"? They are "people in positions of power". I don't understand where this desire to be led comes from. Other people do not have your best interest in mind. I want others to get out of my
390.
by martin-t 1y ago
That's why term limits exist. Currently, they are only used for some positions like presidency, are usually 2 terms and don't apply to other positions. IMO: 1) We should get rid of presidents and other single-person positions alto

More ›