ta8645

12 ms·

91.
by ta8645 2y ago
Well Dr. Michael Levin would agree with you in the sense that he ascribes intelligence to any system that can accomplish a goal through multiple pathways. So for instance the single-celled Lacrymaria, lacking a brain or nervous system, can
92.
by ta8645 2y ago
Of course, none of us have exhaustive knowledge. I don't know the capital of Togo. But I do have enough knowledge to know what an IDE is, and where that sits in a technological stack, i know what a string is, and all that it relies on
93.
by ta8645 2y ago
I'd say that it takes intelligence to encode knowledge, and the more knowledge you have, the more intelligently you can encode further knowledge, in a virtuous cycle. But once you have a data set of knowledge, there's nothing to
94.
by ta8645 2y ago
Yes, but that just effectively recreates the pretraining. You're going to have to explain everything down to what an atom is, and essentially all human knowledge if you want to have any ability to consider abstract solutions that call
95.
by ta8645 2y ago
The issue is that general intelligence is useless without vast knowledge. The pretraining is the knowledge, not the intelligence.
96.
by ta8645 2y ago
Doesn't this mean that at least one of the results is wrong?
97.
by ta8645 2y ago
How about have separate laws for CSAM and "hate speech". Because CSAM is most likely just a fig-leaf for the primary motivation of these laws.
98.
by ta8645 2y ago
Free speech already under threat and now y'all are giving up the right of private communication too? For anyone cheering this on, do you honestly think this will only affect the "bad people", and you'll never have your
99.
Google Is on the Wrong Side of History(eff.org)
68 points by ta8645 2y ago|44 comments
100.
by ta8645 2y ago
Ostensibly, this EO is meant to remove power from bureaucratically controlled agencies in the government. The right have been complaining that real power has been usurped from the institutions mentioned in the constitution, and centered in
101.
by ta8645 2y ago
Revealed at time: https://youtu.be/7gQ9DnSYsXg?t=391 Vladimir Reshetnikov
102.
Cleo from Math StackExchange's Identity Has Been Revealed?(youtube.com)
14 points by ta8645 2y ago|2 comments
103.
Sabine Hossenfelder: I was asked to keep this confidential(youtube.com)
40 points by ta8645 2y ago|29 comments
104.
by ta8645 2y ago
Was Hellwig first, or Andre Hedrick, or maybe Hans Reiser?
105.
by ta8645 2y ago
Elon Musk already held "top secret" security clearance. Because of Space X.
106.
by ta8645 2y ago
> imagined realities. Imagined realities are a real part of reality. > so LLMs are an approximation of an approximate model of reality? Yes, and we as humans have a mental model that is just an approximation of reality. And we read b
107.
by ta8645 2y ago
As the technology exists today: imperfect, often prone to mistakes, and unable to relay confidence levels. These problems may be addressed in future implementations. That's the same message, without any emotional baggage, or overly di
108.
by ta8645 2y ago
You're really missing the point and getting lost in definitions. The entire point of human language is to model reality. Just because it is limited, inexact, and imperfect does not disqualify it as a model of reality. Since LLMs are
109.
by ta8645 2y ago
> no models of reality involved. It literally has a mathematical model that maps what would, colloquially at least, be known as reality. What exactly do you think those math pipelines represent? They're not arbitrary numbers; the
110.
by ta8645 2y ago
I've never used Claude, but Perplexity often says that no definitive information about a topic could be found, and then tries to make some generalized inferences. There's a difference between a specific implementation, and the te
111.
by ta8645 2y ago
> Being persuasive (i.e., churn out convincing prose) is how LLMs were designed to be. No. They were designed to churn out accurate prose that accurately reflects their model of reality. They're just imperfect. You're being
112.
by ta8645 2y ago
That is an emotionally manipulative definition and anthropomorphizes the LLMs. They don't "intend" anything, they're not trying to trick you, or sound persuasive.
113.
by ta8645 2y ago
> You need some extraordinary evidence to claim things like that. No. It's a legitimate possibility. Maybe it wont happen. But maybe it will. There's a reason that military training is meant to be hard though, and not fille
114.
by ta8645 2y ago
This should be expected blowback. The billionaires are taking advantage of a large group of people who feel alienated. All the billionaires have to do is not call them racist, transphobic, nazis, and they'll get their votes. Regardl
115.
by ta8645 2y ago
Two wrongs do not make a right. All my arguments hold even if Musk and Trump are the devil incarnate. In fact, they may be the devil that convinces people to take their eye off the ball of climate change. They are exploiting people's
116.
by ta8645 2y ago
> There's a tremendous leap between "Not supporting Tesla because of Musk" and climate denialism. Not really. Because it doesn't matter if you choose to support an alternative EV maker. If you actively campaign agai
117.
by ta8645 2y ago
It's not that easy... there is inertia, investment, mindshare and messaging. What some fraction of the public will hear, no matter how clear your messaging, is not Fuck Tesla, they will hear, Global Warming isn't that big a dea
118.
by ta8645 2y ago
Exactly. We're surrounded by closeted climate change deniers who don't actually believe the results of climate change will be catastrophic. What does it cost anyone to support Tesla, or at least stay quiet about any opposition yo
119.
by ta8645 2y ago
That's really not the point. Not everyone is paying attention, ANY messaging at all that dissuades the public from going EV instead of ICE is actively harmful. Anyone advocating against Tesla is letting their emotions hurt the fight
120.
by ta8645 2y ago
This article claims exactly that: https://electrek.co/2025/02/06/trump-just-canceled-the-feder...

More ›