starbugs

13 ms·

121.
Dr. Iain McGilchrist on Artificial Intelligence (2022) [video](youtube.com)
1 points by starbugs 3y ago|0 comments
122.
by starbugs 3y ago
> Care to explain your point or link to a relevant comment? Explanation: Reducing the discussion to the two words "when applicable" (especially when ripped out of context) might be relevant in the legal sense, but totally misse
123.
by starbugs 3y ago
> The document says they will open source “when applicable”. If open sourcing wouldn’t benefit the public, then they aren’t obligated to do it. From their charter: “resulting technology will benefit the public and the corporation will se
124.
by starbugs 3y ago
> …unless you believe that the world can change and people’s opinions and decisions should change based on changing contexts and evolving understandings. What I believe doesn't matter. As an adult, if you set up contracts and struct
125.
by starbugs 3y ago
> There's nothing wrong with changing your opinion based on fresh information. I don't really get that twist. What "fresh" information arrived here suddenly? The structure they gave themselves was chosen explicitly wi
126.
by starbugs 3y ago
> If the tech really is dangerous then being more closed arguably is in the public's best interest If that was true, then they shouldn't have started off like that to begin with. You can't have it both ways. Either you are
127.
by starbugs 3y ago
> I know at least one multi national that does this with data entry people as a trial now Do you have a reference? Just asking because I'd be interested in learning more.
128.
by starbugs 3y ago
> It can be an improvement due to LLMs ability to quickly adapt any solutions to your specific use case. My experience with that so far has been that, yes, that works quite well as long as the thing you ask is common and reasonably simpl
129.
by starbugs 3y ago
> So the article is satire and the company non-existant, but what is it alluring to exactly. What is it trying to say? Of course these companies exist and there is a core of truth in what the article says. Otherwise, it wouldn't be
130.
by starbugs 3y ago
> No you're not. Is that the machine speaking?
131.
by starbugs 3y ago
Wow. I was afraid there would be substance to this. But this is on another level. Thank you for the explanation. That's really sad.
132.
by starbugs 3y ago
> - kafkaesque standups where features/bugs are explained by ‘ai’ in a painful loop Could you elaborate on that one? It sounds "interesting".
133.
by starbugs 3y ago
In the long run, I am happy to be replaced by a machine if that’s how the people who work with me see me.
134.
by starbugs 3y ago
What training data are you gonna use for that? That which comes out of an LLM? OK. Now you have a degrading loop of self-reinforcing falsehood.
135.
by starbugs 3y ago
> I yield to the pessimists. To give you an optimistic perspective: I don't think it qualifies as pessimism to point out obvious issues with some of the "approaches" currently developing in this field. If enough people do
136.
by starbugs 3y ago
> I believe Musk once admitted on camera that ~"full self driving basically requires AGI." If anyone could help me identify that video, I would appreciate it. You mean this one? He actually says self driving and LLMs are both h
137.
by starbugs 3y ago
> conspiracy. Well, I guess this thread needed one more trigger label then.
138.
by starbugs 3y ago
> This seems more likely to kill the product than help it. How many people will have visited Gemini the first time today just to try out the "biased image generator"? There's a good chance some may stick. The issue will be
139.
by starbugs 3y ago
That may also be a way to generate attention/visibility for Gemini considering that they are not seen as the leader in AI anymore? Attention is all you need.
140.
by starbugs 3y ago
> The thing is that I can't prove that you or anyone else is conscious either, including myself. With conscious acting AIs it will be the same, and these AIs will believe they are conscious in the same way as we do. So yes, we will
141.
by starbugs 3y ago
> whether or not you think the hard problem of consciousness is actually a problem or not Depends on what constitutes a "problem" in this context. But based on my interpretation of what you probably want to express with this se
142.
by starbugs 3y ago
I don't see how that changes anything about my point. Unless you really claim that modeling "pain" as some kind of variable in an algorithm can be equivalent to a biological being feeling pain? I will certainly have a look at
143.
by starbugs 3y ago
> I would argue that pain, like any interpretation of sensory input, are believes. "experience of a feeling" is equal to interpreting sensory input in a certain way. In other words: "Pain isn't real"? Are you ser
144.
by starbugs 3y ago
> I think you mean insinuated, not insulted (I hope I'm not being insulting). I meant what I typed. Claiming that a human being "is an algorithm if you abstract enough" is an insult. I hope you can see that? > If you wa
145.
by starbugs 3y ago
> Emotions are concepts our internal model has learned when trying to model itself. Do you have a source to underpin that claim? (Honest question.) > For a system to experience what we describe as pain, it needs to receive sensory inp
146.
by starbugs 3y ago
> Pain is a feedback mechanism and often the result of something being broken or poorly performing. I think that's a very reductionist view point that differs from the official definition of pain? > There’s nothing magic about it
147.
by starbugs 3y ago
> Yes, one could describe the intricacies and complexities of human thought and reasoning as equivalent to prompting a stateless stochastic token matching machine but all that proves is how much of a reach the premise is. If you ask me,
148.
by starbugs 3y ago
> If I need you to perform a task, I'm going to try and prevent you from experiencing pain by giving you clear requirements and time to complete the task. That doesn't explain what pain is. My question was how you would algorit
149.
by starbugs 3y ago
> So are you, if you abstract enough. Doubt. Explain, for instance, pain. How do you create that algorithmically? Or if you don't like to explain pain, how about love? You see, that's the problem with being caught up in the &qu
150.
by starbugs 3y ago
> artificial beings Last time I checked it was an algorithm that needs to be run and fed with input to perform calculations. Not a being? The only thing that is a "being" about it currently is the nature of the beings that &quo

More ›