textninja

10 ms·

61.
by textninja 4y ago
I agree, I sounded more defeatist than I intended. No doubt the moat is expansive, but it’s not impossible to cross. At least until the regulators get involved. [I did it again, didn’t I.]
62.
by textninja 4y ago
We’re on two very different wavelengths my friend. I think what’s happening is that I’m arguing between the lines and you’re arguing on them. It’s like matter and antimatter, but no matter.
63.
by textninja 4y ago
The only good ethicist is a fired ethicist. Relax, I’m being flippant, but think about it.
64.
by textninja 4y ago
> N.B. textninja quietly admits my most important point, #3 Your most important point is the distinction between an assumption and a presupposition? I honestly didn’t see the need to challenge that.
65.
by textninja 4y ago
> No disagreement here. There should be an independent monitoring body, something like the SEC. We may disagree even more than you think ;)
66.
by textninja 4y ago
> Imagine having ChatGPT level AI running in an ASIC inside earphones. Oh, it’s going in brains. And no, don’t sign me up.
67.
by textninja 4y ago
The moat between OpenAI and projects like this is access to expensive computing resources, an organizational mandate to invest in aforementioned compute, and finally, access to high quality training data. They were first to market so they’r
68.
by textninja 4y ago
For 1, no, having more poison in a well and therefore making it more murky, green, and scary looking is not worse than having just enough poison in there to kill you. For 2, I disagree - you may want chemicals in your well if they’re design
69.
by textninja 4y ago
Good rhetorical imagery, but ultimately an emotional argument with a subtext loaded with assumptions: 1) that there is an unpoisoned well to begin with 2) that the chemicals are poison or can only be used for poison 3) that increased access
70.
by textninja 4y ago
Coding is clearly all those things.
71.
by textninja 4y ago
Barely tangential to the article, but it’s getting exhausting seeing lazy take after lazy take where an author flippantly refers to crypto as a dumb fad when they really mean specific currencies or maybe NFTs as a whole.
72.
by textninja 4y ago
Biological reproduction for one. Copy/paste for another. Biological reproduction is only tenuously related to understanding and copy/paste isn’t even related at all. We can copy around weights and biases all day without understand
73.
by textninja 4y ago
> Largely because it's impossible to replicate something when we don't entirely know how it works. On the contrary. These are mostly orthogonal.
74.
by textninja 4y ago
> But, color me skeptical That is not a creative color. > We will never solve the problem of a token prediction engine being able to generate a sequence of tokens that the vast majority of humans interpret as not corresponding to a tr
75.
by textninja 4y ago
Interesting. Creativity inspires confidence for me.
76.
by textninja 4y ago
For the most part I agree, but will qualify that the caveats you listed apply to the out of the box version of ChatGPT. I expect these limitations will be overcome by using it as programming substrate and connecting it to other models and
77.
by textninja 4y ago
The black swan event includes the unexpected emergent capabilities of LLMs, which can pass professional examinations and exhibit many attributes of general intelligence, combined with the broad availability to market and massive pressure on
78.
by textninja 4y ago
According to style guides and grammar rules, sure, but if you don’t give your em-dashes room to breathe people might mistake them for a hyphen — true connoisseurs of fine punctuation require one space to announce their dignified entrance, a
79.
by textninja 4y ago
Trust but verify. We’ll get processes built around this for accuracy sensitive applications. I imagine it will look something like a GAN configuration with two or more LLMs trained to adversarially critique and fact check the outputs of the
80.
by textninja 4y ago
This is a black swan event which, if anything, vindicates the hype from dreamers who were ahead of their time. They had a lot of the theory right but lacked the horsepower. This will complete the last mile for other AI tech and be the lacqu
81.
by textninja 4y ago
In summary, spam it everywhere — including in articles admonishing its overuse — because it looks cool and you know it.
82.
by textninja 4y ago
Unless it’s specifically trained not to, I’m fairly certain AI will bypass this without even trying. Such is the way of the unsupervised hill climb on huge unstructured datasets. To put it another way, in order for an artist’s style to trul
83.
by textninja 4y ago
It’s The Selfish Meme . Your artistic style has as much “drive” to reproduce as your DNA. There seems to be a tug of war happening between the interests of the artist and the interests of the art.
84.
by textninja 4y ago
Also, just a side point but I don’t think billionaires value comfort as much as you think. If that was the case they probably would have stopped somewhere in the tens of millions.
85.
by textninja 4y ago
Hey sweet, my existence is pointless!
86.
by textninja 4y ago
> If I am to take your reply seriously, you mean colonize the moon with ultra rich people and then turn it into an arc ship to settle a new world Yes, I said it in a jokey way but I’m actually seriously speculating about that as a distan
87.
by textninja 4y ago
Another benefit might be protection from asteroids and meteorites if built underground.
88.
by textninja 4y ago
I wonder which endgame is more probable: satellite, or space ship? We have people perfectly willing to shroud earth in sulphur to “protect” us from the sun, so who’s to say those same types won’t repurpose the moon into a luxury spacecraft
89.
by textninja 4y ago
ChatGPT had fun with this one. Pretty soon YouTube will be replaced with ITube and we’ll have blockbusters on demand. > In the pulse-pounding sci-fi blockbuster, Lunar Armageddon, the British government enlists Rolls-Royce to construct a
90.
by textninja 4y ago
Also, you can have high general intelligence and still be confidently wrong.

More ›