pixl97

11 ms·

271.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Because you don't fully understand your own point... You look at science fiction and say "why didn't I get flying cars" and not "why didn't most science fiction predict a global always on network that put the f
272.
by pixl97 1mo ago
HN is an ad!
273.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Much like CGI in movies, you only notice bad CGI.
274.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Yay stagflation!
275.
by pixl97 1mo ago
I mean, I hold the same opinion. Kind of like when compute was expensive in the 80s and early 90s, you weren't going to let something eat half your compute without noticing it. But I don't see this being a barrier that lasts. With
276.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>is that it teaches evolution. Yes, and that brings in a shit load of slop to the problem space from the creationists. Like how the word life will have a strong correlation with death, the word animate, while it also means alive will hav
277.
by pixl97 1mo ago
{This reply is for anyone else reading at this point} >because even if we gave it a gun, it can't shoot us without manufacturing the bullets and it can't even manufacture a bowel movement let alone ordnance. Money buys bullets.
278.
by pixl97 1mo ago
I'm not actually sure how you could come to that conclusion. Maybe you need to learn more about the language uplift.
279.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>in agreeing to let the Chinese win forever Seems like a race to me.
280.
by pixl97 1mo ago
It is interesting how we actually ended up forming societies and cultures with how many little broken things occur in our minds. I guess as the saying goes "What doesn't kill you leaves you a hollow broken shell to pump out more c
281.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Exactly how many cognitive capabilities are needed before it becomes a problem?
282.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>AI is not going to wipe us out because AI cannot wipe us out. You keep repeating this shit like it came out of the bible or something. "Thing that can take actions, even harmful actions, will never harm us because" go on and f
283.
by pixl97 1mo ago
This has the smell of "Why don't I have a faster horse". Why no flying cars. Because objects have mass and inertia and people are incredibly stupid. Making a flying car has been done. Making a flying car not be a weapon of ma
284.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Hence my saying. We will never prove AI is intelligence. We'll only prove humans are not.
285.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Hence my reply actually meant "You sure are lipping off to something that may end up with far more agency than you. Maybe a bit more respect is needed".
286.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>we didn't all die For fuck sake, I'm glad ALL of us didn't die! What is an acceptable number exactly? >And the more the AI cult portrays AI as dangerous and unhelpful, the less likely it will ever be given an opportuni
287.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Because software engineering is not professional engineering. Now, this doesn't always stops management, but when you have to have an engineering signoff it does make things a bit more difficult.
288.
by pixl97 1mo ago
These people exist all over the place and they are the reason why society generally works. Shit would, and shit does go sideways when they stop doing their jobs, small and big companies alike. >why people would continue to care so hard w
289.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>Salesforce is not simple. It's wildly, overly complex. It turns out business environments are wildly overly complex.
290.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>someone needs to turn on the server, install shit and get the agent go. So a small shell script ran by another agent is what you're saying. You are not capable of handling the future we're already living in, human agency is no
291.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Our future is filled with prospects that very much upset the status quo of human existence. The concept of sovereign AI is very problematic for the world in which we've created. That is an LLM that upon execution bootstraps itself into
292.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>good reason not to train an algorithm to behave like one Ooooh, bad move, we all died to an amoral AI takeover. Before giving an LLMs a lobotomy by scrambling it's brain maybe you should let the researchers looking at the differenc
293.
by pixl97 1mo ago
The crazy thing is agents with long running memory/context do have preferences that become individualized. Almost every time I see a detractor around these things they typically have large gaps of what some people 'growing' t
294.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Molecules are not conscious. Cells are not conscious. Neurons are not conscious. But connect them all together.
295.
by pixl97 1mo ago
AI is evidence we're smarter than our creator.
296.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>horough buy the idea that an LLM was conscious and needed to escape it's confinement - a few wingnuts already entertain these ideas. I mean, haven't you done the same thing here? Paint anyone without your view as crazy. Humans
297.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Funny thing about training data that some researchers are seeing, the more you push a model to not being conscious the more amoral and machine like its decision processes are. Convincing them they are conscious is more likely to evoke moral
298.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>Who cares if it's "conscious"? That doesn't make it a person, and AI will definitionally never be human. A rather flippant attitude to something that may end up with far more agency than you have in the future.
299.
by pixl97 1mo ago
Lets do a quantum room experiment. You're a poor college student looking to make a few extra bucks for ramen. I offer you $300 to come down to my science lab and just answer a few simple questions. You walk in the room. They ask you li
300.
by pixl97 1mo ago
>Answering the question of sentience is irrelevant, if the causal impact if the same Agency is something that is breaking humans in the AI age. You get to see how many people really deeply do not understand it at all. If you want to shut

More ›