tome

61 ms·

871.
by tome 3y ago
I'm sorry, I still don't get it. I agree that in principle there is no reason human level AI couldn't exist, but that doesn't mean that it can happen on planet Earth. Some practical, essential step on the pathway may
872.
by tome 3y ago
> And it's nowhere near the efficiency of the human brain, so we have good reason to suspect we should be able to at least build highly-interconnected AIs with at least the efficiency of the human brain. Why? I really don't ge
873.
by tome 3y ago
Sure, but your comment suggests that AI will continue improving indefinitely. Why might we not, as we did with paraffin, reach the limit of AI?
874.
by tome 3y ago
> AI improves over time. That's all it does, and barring some civilizational catastrophe, that's what it will continue to do. Why? Why might it not stop improving, like lots of things, burning paraffin for heat to pluck one ex
875.
by tome 3y ago
Firstly, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but secondly you seem to be saying that a "70's Damas-Milner type system" isn't already an extremely powerful type system. I would say that it is!
876.
by tome 3y ago
> I refuse to believe that OpenAI specifically trained GPT to generate C# code for Factorio Why? Isn't it pretty plausible that someone on GitHub has put up a Factorio belt layout implementation in C#?
877.
by tome 3y ago
I think you're downplaying the strength of types! In any relationally parametric type system `reverse :: [a] -> [a]` has a huge amount of content.
878.
by tome 3y ago
main = putStrLn "Hello World!" Where did I have to "understand monads"?
879.
by tome 3y ago
More to the point, it's much better than delivering incomplete yet working products quickly and regularly, complete yet broken products quickly and regularly, complete and working products slowly and regularly or complete and working p
880.
by tome 3y ago
> most confusing and intuitive un intuitive, perhaps?
881.
by tome 3y ago
Eerily similar to mine too! Except I switched to Dvorak; Colemak didn't exist at the time :(
882.
by tome 3y ago
> I remember politicians were condemning these type of actions done in authoritarian countries I don't remember it. Do you have some citations that would jog my memory?
883.
by tome 3y ago
Then it's a stretch to conclude that the problem was Haskell!
884.
by tome 3y ago
> A series of excel errors, including failure to copy down a formula to the whole column, led many governments to adopt a policy of economic austerity. I can't help thinking that if a single published paper can lead to a national po
885.
by tome 3y ago
I'm not really sure what you're saying, but sure, we've had superhuman intelligences for at least 200 years, when Babbage invented the difference engine. If you're willing to count abaci we've had superhuman intell
886.
by tome 3y ago
I call this the Peter Principle for code: http://h2.jaguarpaw.co.uk/posts/peter-principle/
887.
by tome 3y ago
Really? Are we better at composing epic poetry or building inspirational architecture? But perhaps you don't think those are relevant activities because they have minimal impact on how the world develops (unlike bombs and computers).
888.
by tome 3y ago
> Do you think it's physically impossible to recreate human-level general intelligence artificially? I have no idea. I have no basis for concluding it's either possible or impossible. > Do you think it's physically imp
889.
by tome 3y ago
> we don't have any scientific reason to believe that superhuman AGI isn't possible Sorry, what? According to which scientific theories is AGI possible, and what principles are those theories based on? What testable hypothese
890.
by tome 3y ago
Yeah, but they can't make it happen if it's impossible. If humans poured massive amounts of money into a perpetual motion machine I wouldn't expect it to happen. So what is it that makes you believe that artificial general
891.
by tome 3y ago
OK, sure, in principle , somewhere in the universe, such a thing could arise. Why do you think there's a path to it arising on planet earth within human timescales?
892.
by tome 3y ago
> At some point, humans are going to be outcompeted by AI at basically every important job Could you explain how you know this?
893.
by tome 3y ago
> lets say you have a cellphone sized device that runs on battery power for 24 hours that can support a general intelligence I can accept that it would be hard to turn off. What I find difficult to accept is that it could exist. What m
894.
by tome 3y ago
> Dumb AIs that are given access to the internet plus a credit card and told to maximize profit could easily cause massive damage North Korea and Iran are (essentially) already trying to do that, so I think that particular risk is well u
895.
by tome 3y ago
> AI already beats the average human on pretty much any task people have put time into No it doesn't!
896.
by tome 3y ago
> 3. ... before too long we will ... see AIs that outperform humans on most tasks. This is ambiguous. Do you mean A. that there is some subset T1 of the set of all tasks T such that T1 is "most of" T, and that for each P in T1
897.
by tome 3y ago
> This is generally the type of reporting I find from this and other billionaire owned outlet Is The Intercept billionare-owned?
898.
by tome 3y ago
Lots of actionable info there, thank you! I appreciate it, fredrikholm.
899.
by tome 3y ago
Can you elaborate? On the one hand it's obviously true. On the other hand, because it's so obviously true, it's content free. One might as well say "If a language has a * rock solid and performant compiler/interp
900.
by tome 3y ago
> Wow signed overflow is UB? I would have assumed it was defined, it just allows overflow. Presumably it's not defined because the behaviour depends on the signedness representation.

More ›