stefl14

5 ms·

1.
by stefl14 11mo ago
First model I've seen that was consistently compositional, easily handling requests like “Generate an image of an african elephant painted in the New England flag, doing a backflip in front of the russian federal assembly.” OpenAI made
2.
by stefl14 1y ago
Shameless plug of personal blog post, but relevant. Still not fully edited, so writing is a bit scattered, but crux is we now have the framework for talking about consciousness intelligently. It's not as mysterious as in the past, cons
3.
by stefl14 3y ago
This isn't true. I wrote a blog post about it a while back but never finished. It's complete enough to demonstrate the point though so I'll plug anyway https://stefanlavelle.substack.com/p/no-language-isn
4.
by stefl14 4y ago
I disagree with the AI doomers on technical grounds, but there's no need to overreact to the overreaction to LLMs. Apocalyptic predictions are visible in the myths of every civilisation in the written record. They're probably a Ju
5.
by stefl14 4y ago
Manufacturers mostly make black or white cars because that's what people want. Modern culture has made people so boringly conventional that there's no point in manufacturers painting on different colours, so they charge a premium
6.
by stefl14 4y ago
The irony of this post. Brains are sparser than transformers, not denser. That allows you to learn symbolic concepts instead of generalising from billions of spurious correlations. Sure, that works when you've memorised the internet bu
7.
by stefl14 4y ago
Turing Completeness is an incredibly low bar and it doesn't undermine this criticism. Conway's Game of Life is Turing Complete, but try writing modern software with it. That Transformers can express arbitrary programs in principle
8.
by stefl14 4y ago
For how long? Being recent (on evolutionary timescales), evolution has created selection pressures on previously irrelevant variables (the desire to have children, in particular). Without contraception or female labor force participation, p
9.
by stefl14 4y ago
> More people means less energy and resources per person though Malthusianism didn't work in 1700s and doesn't work now. Economists produced endogenous growth theories explaining how more population could lead to higher output