mjburgess

5 ms·

1.
by mjburgess 12d ago
just use an api gateway (ie., a reverse proxy for apis), eg., envoy. This should also be connected to observability and finops style management anyway rather than leaving it to model providers.
2.
by mjburgess 16d ago
It is my view that we are all apes. And therefore all sadists, all maschoists, all vengeful and envious and jealous and have all of the primal things living social animals need to survive in the hash environments of nature. We all displace
3.
by mjburgess 16d ago
I read it more like a conformist performative veganism. I think the implication is that this group treats veganism and all of these beliefs as a kind of shibboleth, an in-group marker for which conformity is expected. The immedaite "fe
4.
by mjburgess 16d ago
It's not about their sex life. It's about how sex connects a community of barely legible AI doomerism. If you don't understand human social interactions very well, or otherwise assume you live in a "world of ideas",
5.
by mjburgess 16d ago
Any actually-reasonable person who was around for the founding craze of this era, ie., New Atheism, quickly realised that there was a deep pathology at the heart of many of its zealots, perhaps summed up by a desired to "recreate relig
6.
by mjburgess 19d ago
Sure, because those businesses collect training data from users who are working on those problems. Perhaps this will never saturate and frontier users will always provide data to fill last generations gaps. My sense is the economics of that
7.
by mjburgess 19d ago
No one spend ~10 mil USD using gpt 5.1 to solve a millenium prize problem with similar solutions in the training data. So we have no reference for whether 5.1, with that training data and that amount of moeny, could likewise produce such a
8.
by mjburgess 20d ago
Sure. Let's first establish a measure is not what is being measured. Then, as far as measures go, we need measures that capture the entire animal kingdom. I can go it into it, but its a lot of time and I'm busy atm. Consider thoug
9.
by mjburgess 20d ago
Well that's the trick. That the systems we use, as a proxy, to measure intellinnce in people are actually fairly easy to immitate. But let's be clear these were always, and are, bad measures of intelligence. You cannot test a do
10.
by mjburgess 20d ago
They're not a reproduction in any sense. A marginal text token isnt computed from the weights of an LLM in anything like any sense of any activity of any mammal. LLMs are immitation machines: they take impressions of prior text. Today,
11.
by mjburgess 20d ago
Well intelligence is not measured by patterns in text. The illusion only takes place in the text domain. Even then, it's a pretty fragile illusion at the moment. Clearly the reasoning traces dont ground the answers. There's no int
12.
by mjburgess 20d ago
There's a difference in the science. You might say, "suppose we had a video game of the solar system where every object was represented and their orbits" etc. then can we study that system alone and ignore the real one? I m
13.
by mjburgess 20d ago
I'm using 'reason' in the language-captured engineering sense. They generate text as-if they reason. Those reasoning traces poorly correlate with their given answers (which is called "cheating" by people who fall fo
14.
by mjburgess 20d ago
Sure: refine their own concepts, imagine, and the list goes on. Indeed almost every mental capacity of mammals is poorly approximated in the text domain. Sure, you can generate text as-if the LLM can imagine -- and in the limit that you hav
15.
by mjburgess 20d ago
It's also obvious that LLMs fall over in a vast number of software engineering contexts, when the reasoning involved hasnt been well-represented in their reasoning training data. I imagine this is a near daily experience for many engin
16.
by mjburgess 20d ago
Maybe. Or maybe its evidence that the frontier of mathematics is knowledge-bound rather than understanding-bound or even just manpower-bound. In many cases where proofs have emerged, that I have read, the LLM has retrieved some antique lemm
17.
by mjburgess 20d ago
The claim is OpenAI stole the work of mathematicians who had the same proof that they had developed using chatgpt conversations. Since by default, 'sharing' is turned on, and it often 'turns itself on' -- it is plausible
18.
by mjburgess 20d ago
The issue is not whether an ML model of any kind can generate (X_ReasoningTrace, X_Answer) distributed like P_HumanExpert(X) -- the issue is always why it would do so. By introducing modelling of "Reasoning Traces" into LLMs, an
19.
by mjburgess 20d ago
Yes, I stand by everything in that comment. I'm sure there are better choices were I was more wrong. However, the subject matter of that comment is in what sense LLMs are models of language and in what sense that model of language is a
20.
by mjburgess 20d ago
This still assumes its possible to "align" LLMs, that LLMs have something like goals or intentions that can be "aligned". Instead, LLMs "hack" because they are (1) trained on public hacking exemplars, and (2) a
21.
by mjburgess 24d ago
It's quite likely that many survey participants were AI bots, and hence preferring AI generated content. And certaintly, that of the 1600+ people whose 15min they rented, few were paying any meaningful levels of attention to earn their
22.
by mjburgess 25d ago
> of (1/val)A
23.
by mjburgess 27d ago
The claim is that the RSI operation is just finding a fixed point of improvement, RSI(LLM ) = RSI(LLM ) -- for an optimal LLM* which is a fixed point of RSI As for eigenvalues/vectors, they're fixed points of (1/val)A or A*va
24.
by mjburgess 29d ago
Its just a misunderstanding. All forces take place at lightspeed. The computation on a CPU isnt a single signal transmission, but it is the net effect of a very large number of them -- which is "extremely slow", compared to lights
25.
by mjburgess 1mo ago
All the issues you mention here have a death horizon: the people engaged in the behaviour will be dead when its effects are most acute. That they engage in it then isnt very mysterious. That doesnt clearly apply here
26.
by mjburgess 2mo ago
> Nobody intentionally promotes incompetent people This just isnt the case and suggests you have not been at a senior enough position to understand the dynamics of promotion into middle management from a the top-down pov. It is not uncom
27.
by mjburgess 2mo ago
Right, and that's pretty much exactly Hobbes analysis of the state of nature which is a hypothetical stripping away of such systems of political management. The application of this principle to physical resources is novel, sure -- but
28.
by mjburgess 2mo ago
which is also basically the same point made by Hobbes about the state of nature Hobbes, Rousseau were effectively both trying to solve the "tragedy of the commons" problem with political collaboration. Hobbes is widely misundersto
29.
by mjburgess 2mo ago
I think that was a good enough explanation for gpt3.5 -- these days, labs are extremely capable of post-training phases that eclipse that kind of training phase -- and hence of choosing whatever style or tone they wish. eg., OpenAI has gone
30.
by mjburgess 2mo ago
Estimating the number of jobs lost is very different than estimating the sign of a difference of a fixed "error-prone method for measuring jobs lost" The former is asking "are my weighing scales accurate?" the latter is,

More ›