mike741

7 ms·

31.
by mike741 3y ago
yep. no hard feelings.
32.
by mike741 3y ago
finite state machines can't process irrational numbers. there's nothing we can google that will change that.
33.
by mike741 3y ago
you are falling for the most basic marketing tricks in the book. just because something calls itself "trueRNG" does not mean it is. there's no possibility of those devices outputting an irrational number.
34.
by mike741 3y ago
And if you google "unicorn" you will get this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn Sadly, having a wikipedia article does not mean something actually exists.
35.
by mike741 3y ago
If we're including tests that don't exist yet, then sure those are going to be difficult to pass. As far as actual ToM tests go though, such as the one being discussed in this thread, they can be easily passed by trivial hardcodin
36.
by mike741 3y ago
I don't believe there is such a digital generator but if there were it would make the massive difference of being unpredictable (because there would be irrational numbers impossible to fully simulate ahead of time) from the perspective
37.
by mike741 3y ago
It's not random, its pseudo-random. Those are not the same thing.
38.
by mike741 3y ago
Beamsearch is just one example, the same applies to top sampling and greedy search. Focusing on one approach suggests you've missed the actual point: if you know how a given output is synthesized, then its not autonomous. You're t
39.
by mike741 3y ago
> The more data you train it on (and the larger and therefore more capable he model is), the better it performs - i.e the more complete and consistent this world model has evidentially become. Increasing training data doesn't increa
40.
by mike741 3y ago
A program hardcoded to respond to a scenario and question with the exact output desired by the ToM task. For example: [INPUT] Scenario: "The morning of the high school dance Sarah placed her high heel shoes under her dress and then wen
41.
by mike741 3y ago
> but it can ace the bar exam A traditional static program could ace the bar exam, or even a well-prepared stack of flash cards. We wouldn't say the flash cards are exhibiting intelligence though, only their creators. > The whole
42.
by mike741 3y ago
> Controlling a body is not relevant to a brain in a jar, nor does it detract from the intelligence of someone like Stephen Hawking. I never said Steven Hawking wasn't intelligent, I was just pointing out obvious differences between
43.
by mike741 3y ago
There's no reason to assume the AI can understand how we think based on just those tasks. Those tasks could be completed a traditional static program. It's akin to claiming the Mona Lisa painting can see us because it looks like
44.
by mike741 3y ago
> the idea that the brain functions on a basis of complex statistical processes doesn't imply that statistics created the brain itself Agreed. However, the phrasing and context of the question did imply the brain is "just stati
45.
by mike741 3y ago
>> There's no underlying theory of mind here. > GPT4 have a Theory of Mind You are misunderstanding ggm. That study is on ToM tasks referring to GPT's analysis and perceived recognition of the user's mind. It say
46.
by mike741 3y ago
We can describe ourselves with statistics, that does not mean we are statistics. This is called the "Fallacy of the Map" where a symbol is falsely equated with the entity it represents. https://rationalwiki.org&#x2F
47.
by mike741 3y ago
> why can't statistics alone generate emergent phenomena? because there is no generative mechanism in the definition of "statistics" with which to generate anything. > What convinces you that the human brain isn't
48.
by mike741 3y ago
By these standards, the Library of Babel "knows" every true 3260 character statement without being told anything at all: https://libraryofbabel.info/
49.
by mike741 3y ago
Of course they do. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-... https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US > Parties with whom information may be disclosed: Service pr
50.
by mike741 3y ago
> How is data being “stolen”? You tell me, I was responding to your hypothetical question: "If you were actually worried about YouTube stealing your data, why do you keep giving it to them by using their service?" >An ad blo
51.
by mike741 3y ago
Yes, because they can afford to operate at a loss to starve out those competitors....
52.
by mike741 3y ago
Some stuff is illegal in some countries and will get your platform sued or taken down completely. Sometimes competitors and malicious users will spam undesirable content to smear your brand identity, get you blacklisted by search engines, o
53.
by mike741 3y ago
> You’re supposed to use the blue look-into-it-more button Isn't that the problem? If a report is in regards to the content of a post, and we have limited time, why not start with the actual content being reported first and have the
54.
by mike741 3y ago
> the bosses who rate the moderators are also fallible. Sometimes you'll be right and the system will still say you're wrong. those are not the difficulties of moderating though, those are the difficulties of general employment
55.
by mike741 3y ago
there are at least 2 tiers: "Youtube Premium" and "Youtube Premium Lite"
56.
by mike741 3y ago
doesn't change the fact that they're receiving tax breaks. this creates an unfair advantage and nullifies any "build your own alternative" arguments.
57.
by mike741 3y ago
It's a simple value estimate. Some things, at least in the moment, appear to be worth having some of your data stolen. Also there are measures that can be taken, such as using adblockers, that minimize the cost.
58.
by mike741 3y ago
They track and sell it to undisclosed 3rd parties
59.
by mike741 3y ago
"Tons of content on multiple services" =/= "Tons of alternative services" There is only one viable alternative to Youtube that I'm aware of. I use it whenever I can, but that doesn't change the fact that Y
60.
by mike741 3y ago
That kinda sounds like lying.

More ›