p-e-w

67 ms·

961.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> If they suspect fraud, they aren't allowed to tell you about it. That sounds like bullshit. Why would a mere suspicion of fraud, in the absence of a subpoena or court/gag order, mean that they aren't allowed to tell th
962.
by p-e-w 3y ago
The "old" Framework 13 is still not available in the vast majority of countries[1], including most of the EU (and forget about it if you live anywhere outside the Western world). I find it pretty surprising that designing an entir
963.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> If AGI is a computer passing a test, then AGI was achieved a long time ago. AIs couldn't even pass a third-grade reading comprehension exam until about 5 years ago. Computers being able to pass tests designed for humans is a very
964.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Take two humans. What does it mean for one of them to be "better at dreaming" than the other?
965.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Dreaming is not a "task", and certainly not one where performance comparisons make any sense.
966.
by p-e-w 3y ago
A human with below average intelligence can outperform many junior professional software engineers because of JavaScript? Do you mean a programmer with below average intelligence (for a programmer)? Because I'm having a hard time
967.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> when an average human that knows programming should be able to make one that works. Very few people who "know programming" are actually capable of creating a complete application that serves a specific purpose. Many professio
968.
by p-e-w 3y ago
My inquiry is about concrete, measurable tasks for which the question of "superiority" makes sense to ask. I'm not familiar with the works you are referencing, but your response gives the strong impression that I would find m
969.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> The gap between an LLM and a "human with below average intelligence" is far more than 10x. In which direction? GPT-4 passes the bar exam with a top 10% score. How do you think a human with below average intelligence (or even
970.
by p-e-w 3y ago
I'm talking about today. I'm well aware that in 1965, in 1972, and even in 1992 there were plenty of tasks at which average humans were obliterating computers.
971.
Ask HN: Is there a mental task at which average humans can still beat computers?
1 points by p-e-w 3y ago|10 comments
972.
by p-e-w 3y ago
I don't buy the idea (with either architecture) that "10x"-type scaling is required for another breakthrough. Think of a human with below average intelligence. Then think of a human genius. Now consider how incredibly similar
973.
by p-e-w 3y ago
"What I cannot create, I do not understand." - Richard Feynman LLMs notwithstanding, I have yet to see a replication of the human mind created by humans. Therefore, I would take any claim that neuroscience 'understands&#x27
974.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> everything Ithkuil can express, so can English Imagine there is a concept that no language can express. Now Ithkuil introduces a new word that is defined as that concept. But English (and all other languages) still cannot express that
975.
by p-e-w 3y ago
This makes no sense to me. What does computability have to do with semantic expressiveness? You've demonstrated that English can generate every sequence of tokens, not that it can express every concept.
976.
by p-e-w 3y ago
"We can forget stuff" and "I believe I just forgot that" are very different things. One is a general statement of fact, the other implies introspection of one's own individual cognitive processes. I have yet to see
977.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> English is the linguistic equivalent of Turing complete Proof?
978.
by p-e-w 3y ago
But that concept can also be expressed in English – which you just did. If you simply run the English description you gave through a Huffman coder, you should get a compressed version that is the same length or even shorter than the Ithkuil
979.
by p-e-w 3y ago
The idea that language and thought are the same thing was discarded decades ago, and no linguist uses the pop term "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" anymore (though linguistic relativity is still sometimes discussed). If the cited claim wa
980.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> I imagine it would be more comfortable to think, read and speak in Ithkuil There are some cognitive scientists who believe that the ability to use language is built into the human brain, and (natural) language acquisition basically inv
981.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> Of course we can reflect on actual cognitive processes such as forgetting or learning Is there any actual evidence that our so-called reflections on our own thinking are anything more than hallucinations? "It's obvious&quot
982.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> the number of years of a monk's seniority is the easy and fairly-reliable gauge of a monk's authority Authority, or expertise? Authority requires either enforcement, or widespread recognition, or both. The government has auth
983.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Is there any hard evidence that "metacognition" reflects actual cognitive processes, rather than being something that the mind pulls out of its ass?
984.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> Doing so creates conditions favorable to dehumanize and disempower actual people This is the exact reason why that mentality is so incredibly dangerous. If "proper behavior" towards AI agents becomes something that is subject
985.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> So take his authority to run a "university" with a huge grain of salt. What does "authority" mean in a Buddhist context? From what little I know about it, Buddhism isn't like the Catholic church, where everythi
986.
by p-e-w 3y ago
The paper lists the first author's institutional affiliation as "RWKV Foundation". However, I cannot find anything about this supposed "foundation" online, and as far as I can tell, the term RWKV originates in this
987.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> These things are very different from the human mind. With your mind, you read the words one by one, building up intuition as you go. You're confusing your perception of how your mind works with how your mind actually works. Si
988.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Physics is centuries old though. Computer science is not. That physics changed so dramatically in the first half of the 20th century is certainly surprising, considering that the field already had a long history behind it.
989.
by p-e-w 3y ago
This kind of demonstrates that at the fundamental level, physics has been stagnating for quite a while, no? Imagine, during the time the Feynman Lectures were created, trying to study using 60-year-old material. Utterly unthinkable. You wou
990.
by p-e-w 3y ago
That's correct, but it doesn't mean artificial neural networks cannot achieve intelligence, or even superintelligence. The fact that the human brain doesn't work like that doesn't automatically imply that (structurally)

More ›