oska

22 ms·

271.
by oska 4y ago
I don't share any of the excitement that ppl like you appear to be feeling, and I recoil from the grandiose claims being made by people who, in my opinion, are being fooled by the 21st century equivalent of a ventriloquist's doll.
272.
by oska 4y ago
The 'handwavey' thinking here is from those who state as a 'fact' that the human brain is an LLM
273.
by oska 4y ago
Internalising the idea ( not 'fact') that 'we're basically LLMs' will only take you to a place of deep sterility, delusion and nihilism.
274.
by oska 4y ago
> once it's roughly on par with us it'll be just as capable of innovating and trying new things This is complete nonsense. An LLM has no ability to innovate or 'try new things'.
275.
by oska 4y ago
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
276.
by oska 4y ago
I felt several times that I remembered lines from this piece as I was reading it but after finishing it I looked at the url and saw that it has only recently been published
277.
by oska 4y ago
Machines are not alive, they are constructed and for them to develop intelligence the capacity would either need to be constructed too (how?) or it would need to appear as an 'emergent quality'. I think the latter is the line that
278.
by oska 4y ago
Sorry, we're discussing GPT and LLMs here, not human consciousness and intelligence. GPT has been constructed . We know how it was set-up and how it operates. (And people commenting here should be basically familiar with both hows men
279.
by oska 4y ago
Ok, so as I understand it, you're considering having a living human write a new play and then put it through an LLM such as GPT to rewrite it in 'the style of Shakespeare'. That is possible yes, but only within a limited inte
280.
by oska 4y ago
It's frankly stupid to interpret it as anything else. Sorry for the strong language but this is a ridiculous line to take. A 'work of Shakespeare' is not even remotely open to interpretation as being something produced in t
281.
by oska 4y ago
It's a case of never . No machine will ever create a new 'work of Shakespeare' and it's ridiculous to think otherwise.
282.
by oska 4y ago
Suggest you lay off the personal attacks and review the site's Guidelines [1]. I'd already passed over and chosen to ignore your opening attack in your first comment but you've ramped it up with this reply. Finally, maybe rat
283.
by oska 4y ago
This area - so-called 'AI' - has a long history of malinvestment. And remarkable that you cite Microsoft's involvement as some sort of standard of significance. A company that has a long history of non -innovation, alongside
284.
by oska 4y ago
> I can literally see GPT take inputs, make conclusions based on them, and ask me questions to test its hypotheses, right before my eyes in real time. It takes inputs and produces new outputs (in the textual form of questions, in this ca
285.
by oska 4y ago
Schrödinger was a real and very eminent scientist, one who has staked their place in the history of science. Sagan, while he did a little bit of useful work on planetary science early in his career, quickly descended into the realm of (self
286.
by oska 4y ago
I will continually push back at the concept of 'Artificial Intelligence'. It's a science fiction conceit, a fantasy, and I don't think it is ever possible to achieve (creation of an actual artificial intelligence). And
287.
by oska 4y ago
> But if you give it a different task, you can see reasoning in action. For example, have it play guess-the-animal game with you while telling it to "think out loud". I'm not sure if you put "think out loud" in q
288.
by oska 4y ago
We have cognition (our own experience of thinking and the thinking communicated to us by other beings) and we have the (apparent) physical world ('maths and science'). It is only an assumption that cognition, a primary experienc
289.
by oska 4y ago
I find it bizarre and actually somewhat disturbing that ppl formulate equivalency positions like this. It's not so much that they are raising an LLM to their own level, although that has obvious dangers, e.g. in giving too much 'c
290.
by oska 4y ago
> If you ask ChatGPT how it does this, it says "I break down the problem into its component parts, apply relevant mathematical rules and formulas, and then generate a solution". You are (naively, I would suggest) accepting the
291.
by oska 4y ago
> The argument that an AI can’t be thinking because it’s producing language is just as silly That is not the argument
292.
by oska 4y ago
> it will drastically expand the reasoning capability > it can algorithmically do reasoning How is this machine doing reasoning ? Why do you think you can use this word in this context ?
293.
by oska 4y ago
That story was fake news
294.
by oska 4y ago
> You can eat the most healthy diet in the world and still be massively obese. Strongly doubt this assertion
295.
by oska 4y ago
Getting to explore what it means to be 'hungry', i.e. asking yourself "Is this feeling I need to eat habit or actual real need?" is a large part of controlling/regulating food intake. This 'exploration' us
296.
by oska 4y ago
Intriguingly, it seems that the vast majority of the population of North Korea are 'naturally thin' and virtually every young person you see in footage of 1960s USA too. IOW, 'naturally thin' is a bogus idea.
297.
by oska 4y ago
You need failures to 'ripple through the economy' Removing these ripples brings greater risk, which is artificial stability and moral hazard And taking your analogy further, show me one body of water in nature that doesn't
298.
by oska 4y ago
Your example has been comprehensively dealt with before in this ongoing discussion (e.g. in previous threads on this matter). Dahl made the textual changes about the Oompa Loompas himself , after listening to some feedback on the original
299.
by oska 4y ago
Shakespeare predates the modern concept (and cult) of the author. This means that you are comparing two entities that are different in important ways (an Elizabethan playwright and a 20th Century author).
300.
by oska 4y ago
They don't have the foresight to care early on. They certainly do care when what has been warned about starts getting implemented.

More ›