pegasus

25 ms·

451.
by pegasus 4y ago
And yet... you ain't seen nothing yet.
452.
by pegasus 4y ago
Yet ChatGPT totally - apparently - gets 1 + 1. In fact it aces the addition table way beyond what a child or even your average adult can handle. It's only when you get to numbers in the billions that it's weaknesses become appare
453.
by pegasus 4y ago
I was thinking in terms of simple logic and semantics. The example I picked though muddied the waters by bringing in real-world phenomena. A better test would be anything that stays strictly within the symbolic world - the true umwelt of
454.
by pegasus 4y ago
The question of grounding is a problem that arises in thinking about cognition in general, yes. In AI, it changes from a theoretical problem to a practical one, as this whole discussion proves. As for one-shot learning, what I was driving
455.
by pegasus 4y ago
But this issue is present equally with Google search, no? What I'm saying is that by smartly aggregating all the different opinions on an issue, a LLM could provide better visibility into our collective mind than we currently have acc
456.
by pegasus 4y ago
Like GP said, the LLM has no chance at knowing what a cat is, regardless of how much data it ingests, because a cat is not made of data. It's not like you're getting closer and closer to knowing what a "Mæw" is. You we
457.
by pegasus 4y ago
That part made the least sense for me. Since a more advanced version of a LLM would be better at extracting the truth of things from the given data, what could it possibly gain from ingesting the output of a less precise version of itself?
458.
by pegasus 4y ago
What he misses in this analogy is that part of what produces the "blur" is the superimposing of many relevan paragraphs found on the web into one. This mechanism can be very useful, because it could average out errors and give on
459.
by pegasus 4y ago
Makes sense.
460.
by pegasus 4y ago
Why no networking? I guess Apple requires authors to jump through extra hoops to prove that nothing personal is being sent out?
461.
by pegasus 4y ago
Historians agree (based for example on studying human remains) that they were much healthier, amongst other things. Check out the book "Against the Grain" for example.
462.
by pegasus 4y ago
So no resource and pollution crisis? Sounds even better to me.
463.
by pegasus 4y ago
Nope, the onus is on you to provide evidence if you're going to go against common sense. And all you have is that flimsy "it's the same time stretch" argument. Do you also protest when people call someone immature for th
464.
by pegasus 4y ago
Why not though? To me it sounds dogmatic to make such pronouncements without any evidence. Just because nobody has come up with a formula for something doesn't make it unreal. Phenomena exist outside of our small rationally circumscrib
465.
by pegasus 4y ago
He didn't even mention mutations or measurements, so you might be reading a bit too much into it there. But yeah, I guess one (or a whole army of scientists) could think up a measurement scheme like that, starting from the last common
466.
by pegasus 4y ago
Why would it depend solely on the duration? Some species stabilize and don't change much over millions of years (like crocodiles), others change rapidly in a comparatively short period of time (like humans).
467.
by pegasus 4y ago
Avoiding them like the plague doesn't seem very respectful to me.
468.
by pegasus 4y ago
Only in the military? Wouldn't it be easier to steelman the argument by inserting the missing "most"?
469.
by pegasus 4y ago
The question could be steel-manned when restated as: why does today's average app, in order to complete an ordinary task - like displaying a series of characters on the screen - need to run 1000x more CPU instructions than yesterday&#x
470.
by pegasus 4y ago
That downvoting behavior is indeed fascinating (and slightly troubling).
471.
by pegasus 4y ago
Exactly the kind of faulty logic GPT3 is prone towards.
472.
by pegasus 4y ago
It's not at all the same. The behavior you refer to can be checked and proved by anyone as long as they know what to look for. Whereas the FB "tweak to the algorithm" discussed here cannot. This is exactly what I was saying a
473.
by pegasus 4y ago
This would be more like shadow banning but in a way that can never be proven, or even detected in the first place. The post would just be surfaced less. Since there's no visibility on what gets surfaced when, it's a way to nudge
474.
by pegasus 4y ago
The heuristic/algorithm is Facebook's creation, so they (including possibly you?) are to blame either way. I think GP is pointing out the fact that there being no clear rules or accountability on what gets surfaced on our timelin
475.
by pegasus 4y ago
Sadly, the answer has nothing to do with Japan and everything to do with the Soviet Union: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...
476.
by pegasus 4y ago
This article makes a solid case that not only did the US not need to drop the bomb in order to precipitate Japan's capitulation, but that it did so knowing that it's not necessary: https://www.latimes.com/opinion&#
477.
by pegasus 4y ago
The numbers are not as bad as GP implies, but still quite bad: In 2017, blacks represented 12% of the U.S. adult population but 33% of the sentenced prison population. Whites accounted for 64% of adults but 30% of prisoners. And while Hispa
478.
by pegasus 4y ago
Interesting, what profession would that be? Some kind of PR firm, or is there something more specialized for pointed jobs/personal advice like this?
479.
by pegasus 4y ago
The oculus is clearly a hardware, not a software product, so GP's point stands.
480.
by pegasus 4y ago
That's a silly thing to wish for: like wishing global warming kills off as many species of animals as possible, in order to simplify zoology.

More ›