qarl

15 ms·

331.
Determinism, Free Will, and Computational Irreducibility
3 points by qarl 2y ago|0 comments
332.
by qarl 2y ago
Your piece is very very well said. Thank you so much for putting yourself out there.
333.
by qarl 2y ago
Good lord I cannot stand the tech-bro echo chamber. They're just as self righteous as the "woke" just much less self aware.
334.
by qarl 2y ago
200,000 is quite a bit smaller than infinite.
335.
by qarl 2y ago
I think the question is interesting because I've seen a number of people making claims such as "ChatGPT cannot do this/that". No. ChatGPT as it currently stands can execute any possible program (within practical constrai
336.
Conjecture: ChatGPT Is Turing Complete
1 points by qarl 2y ago|4 comments
337.
by qarl 2y ago
No. Take care now.
338.
by qarl 2y ago
Look man, 5 + 5 = 10, even if it's implemented by monkeys on typewriters. This argument we're having is a version of the Chinese Room. I've never found Searle's argument persuasive, and I truly have no interest arguing
339.
by qarl 2y ago
Friend, it gave the answer 10, just like the illusionary calculator. I'm sorry you don't like how it got the answer. You take care now.
340.
by qarl 2y ago
Way back at the top I explained that ChatGPT can indeed create a multistage plan. I encourage you to try it for yourself. Otherwise, I think we should go our separate ways. You take care now.
341.
by qarl 2y ago
HEH. Ok. Suppose I create the illusion of a calculator. I type in 5, then plus, then 5. And it gives me the illusional answer of 10. What's the difference?
342.
by qarl 2y ago
Hmmm... You didn't really explain yourself - I'm not sure I understand your point. But guessing at what you mean - when I evaluate ChatGPT, I include all the trivial add-ons. For example, AutoGPT will create a plan like this and
343.
by qarl 2y ago
Cats and spiders are good at navigating physical space - but aren't really known for intelligence. And they're terrible drivers. I'll grant you that LLMs are terrible at what I'd call "animal intelligence" - b
344.
by qarl 2y ago
I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it. Ten years ago, it was common to hear the argument: "Are cats intelligent? No, they can't speak." Language was seen as the pinnacle of the mind. Lately that's
345.
by qarl 2y ago
> It's referring to the fact that cats are able to do tasks like multistage planning, which he asserts current AIs are unable to do. I don't understand this criticism at all. If I go over to ChatGPT and say "From the pers
346.
by qarl 2y ago
HEH... reminds me of an argument Searle once made: with the right "translation" you can make a wall intelligent.
347.
by qarl 2y ago
Well... except... cats can't talk.
348.
by qarl 2y ago
> There's no clause in there about your consciousness getting magically teleported to worlds in which you survive. You are absolutely correct - there is nothing about the MWI that implies such a thing. Such a thing is implied by co
349.
by qarl 2y ago
Well, if you wait long enough, it'll happen by happenstance.
350.
by qarl 2y ago
> Yes, unfortunately we have not figured out how to rewind time in the real world yet. 10 bucks says you get complaints for not implementing the "real world" feature.
351.
by qarl 2y ago
I'd love to address your point, but unless you further articulate your position I won't be able. I see nothing in my statements that isn't directly said or implied from the linked video.
352.
by qarl 2y ago
I guess I don't see the big issue with running a wire when you already must run a much larger and more complex track. And yes, we'd need to see numbers to be certain, but my intuition tells me that transmission losses won't c
353.
by qarl 2y ago
The whole point of electric is to improve environmental impact. Wasting energy by moving those batteries is contrary to that goal.
354.
by qarl 2y ago
Ummm... what charges the batteries? Not diesel?
355.
by qarl 2y ago
You need to explain what you think those things are.
356.
by qarl 2y ago
I think you're missing my point. The problem isn't the question - it's the fact that Balmer was objectively wrong about the answer - and he never changed that determination after having conversations about it however many ti
357.
by qarl 2y ago
I think you're missing something. Presumably Balmer did ask this question. At least a few times. And yet he never heard of the correct answer, and believed the incorrect answer to be correct. That tells you that if anyone did say &qu
358.
by qarl 2y ago
And this, friends, is the perfect example of why the modern tech interview process is pure insanity.
359.
by qarl 2y ago
The real explanation: the original script used humans as a source of compute power (some quantum brain crap stolen from "Hyperion") but was later changed to batteries because audiences are dumb.
360.
by qarl 2y ago
I think you're kidding yourself if you think something like HN could exist on 4chan.

More ›