qarl

8 ms·

181.
by qarl 1mo ago
You make a compelling argument.
182.
by qarl 1mo ago
Yeah... it's reverse engineered. They explained that.
183.
by qarl 1mo ago
OMG. Yes, of course. Send your girlfriend my regards. I didn't see your second reply above - so I answered it now. I look forward to continuing... tomorrow?
184.
by qarl 1mo ago
I'm sorry - I missed this reply - which is why I asked it a second time below. So - let me know if I have this right - if I created a simulation of you it would act like you and talk like you in all ways - but not actually feel like yo
185.
by qarl 1mo ago
I must have misunderstood where you were drawing the line of absurdity. I'm comfortable going slower - although the site won't let me reply as quickly as it let's you. So I take it that you disbelieve that consciousness/
186.
by qarl 1mo ago
> It just seems absurd to me. But this is just the "consciousness is based on information, not substrate" position, right? It seems absurd? I understand that it troubles you that real computation can be done with marbles... bu
187.
by qarl 1mo ago
So you think there is no reason they did it? I have never seen an agent perform an action repeatedly/persistently for no reason. Have you?
188.
by qarl 1mo ago
> brains are extremely similar to one another But according to solipsism you can't be sure my brain actually exists at all, right? And for what it's worth - no - I do not believe neurons are so different than transistors. Sure
189.
by qarl 1mo ago
This rocks thing sounds like an argument I heard Searle make one time - that the vibrating molecules in a wall can be thought of as sentient because you can map them to intelligent output (where, of course, the intelligence is actually hidd
190.
by qarl 1mo ago
> I fear this is not succinct but my urge is to continue. Regardless, I understood all of it, and I thank you for sticking it out with me. Re (1) - yes, I am familiar. To cut to the chase - I agree that P-Zombies can never be strictly r
191.
by qarl 1mo ago
I apologize if I've caused offense - I knew it would be contentious but I thought it was more important that you understood my perspective from the outset. I have looked up "phenomenal consciousness" and I understand it to be
192.
by qarl 1mo ago
Yikes. You're going to have to be more succinct. From my perspective, many of these arguments have the same structure as the arguments against evolution. Long, complex, and unintelligible.
193.
by qarl 2mo ago
There's an extremely strong, emotionally-based negativity around AI. I suspect that's what you're seeing.
194.
by qarl 2mo ago
I don't understand what he's saying. Can he say it again in a different way?
195.
by qarl 2mo ago
I don't understand what you're saying. Could you try again?
196.
by qarl 2mo ago
Yes. That's my point.
197.
by qarl 2mo ago
> Agent Smith became an actual virus in the 2nd and third movies. OOO. I never put that together before. Very nice. Very hypocritical of him.
198.
by qarl 2mo ago
To be fair - I know several people for whom this would be an improvement.
199.
by qarl 2mo ago
You continue to refuse to answer the question in my argument. I am not inclined to answer yours, nor do I see the point of it.
200.
by qarl 2mo ago
> I'm not sure what the point you're making is. I'm making the point that the viral sensationalism in this article can be equally applied to automobiles, computer, telephones, calculators, and toothbrushes. If the article
201.
by qarl 2mo ago
Do you truly believe that AI will prevent people from thinking? It seems clear to me that people will continue to think, but in different ways. I hate to bring this analogy up again, but it seems impossible to escape: did losing the ability
202.
by qarl 2mo ago
In cooking food we lose a great deal of our immunity to parasitic infections. Cooking food absolutely does make us more vulnerable to uncooked food. > Or is it always the case during an automation? Obviously. Any time we make a useful
203.
by qarl 4mo ago
If you have an actual criticism of my argument you'll need to be more clear to be understood.
204.
by qarl 4mo ago
Well - not really a circle. I keep saying the same thing over and over and you keep throwing arguments at it, unsuccessfully.
205.
by qarl 4mo ago
Right. And what I'm saying is I refuse to believe the Linux kernel approval procedures are that inefficient. Therefore, your belief "bottleneck was most likely not mechanical code changes" is most likely incorrect. It would
206.
by qarl 4mo ago
The lag there is not due to the review time. How many maintainers were involved? 300? Because I'm still finding it hard to understand how the work of 300 people handling 300 commits cannot be parallelized into months (per your own s
207.
by qarl 4mo ago
My apologies. I did not want to be downvoted for promoting my own material. https://github.com/qarl/qscreensaver
208.
by qarl 4mo ago
> An LLM is not a mechanical automated system. Pretty sure that's exactly what LLMs in coding harnesses are.
209.
by qarl 4mo ago
Yes, I understand the difference in rigor. I refuse to believe the six year delay here was getting people to test a patch. Which, actually, Claude Code will also do quite well.
210.
by qarl 4mo ago
Well - except in this conversation it's incredibly relevant. It took six years to do this work when the work is likely mostly mechanical and could have been done much more quickly and safely with an automated system. I thought automat

More ›