willmarch

3 ms·

1.
by willmarch 5d ago
Signed up and submitted a test model. Now the real training begins!
2.
by willmarch 5d ago
Pretty neat! I'm considering entering some models. How long will you be running these competitions?
3.
by willmarch 5d ago
First off, there is no accepted definition or test for consciousness. The concept is something we cannot prove even exists (outside of magical or imprecise, human-centric definitions). Second, there is no common definition of thinking that
4.
by willmarch 5d ago
You just completely ignored the two words being discussed: "thinking" and "intelligence"
5.
by willmarch 6d ago
Can you explain to me how a Millennium Problem gets solved without any thinking or intelligence? If someone's opinion is illogical and clearly incorrect (not based in facts or in reality) it is not valid and doesn't not have to be
6.
by willmarch 6d ago
"you can solve NS without thinking." What?! The constant goalpost moving and redefining of "thinking" and "intelligence" is simply unbelievable at this point
7.
AI Changed How Spotify Builds. What We Learned About Quality at Higher Velocity(engineering.atspotify.com)
5 points by willmarch 6d ago|2 comments
8.
by willmarch 7d ago
Sad.
9.
by willmarch 8d ago
Which is what?
10.
by willmarch 8d ago
I appreciate the references but I'm guessing they don't fully support the claims you made above, at least not as strongly as you're making them seem. While they talk about egalitarianism and resisting domineering members, and
11.
by willmarch 8d ago
I guess we'll find out soon enough...
12.
by willmarch 8d ago
Your child never messed up en passant (or had trouble understanding it in a real game), castled through or into a check, didn't see a discovered check after moving a piece, never got confused by how stalemate works?
13.
by willmarch 8d ago
...and mistakes like not seeing discovered checks, castling into check, trying to castle out of check, castling through a check, missing checks when promoting a piece, misunderstanding how stalemate works, etc? If you compared a human after
14.
by willmarch 9d ago
This still feels more like an opinion than facts/proof. I was hoping for actual cited papers or studies, it feels like you just reiterated what you said above but adding "In anthropology..."
15.
by willmarch 10d ago
The only way to master anything is lots of trial and error. Coaches and teachers can help guide you towards more focused trial and error paths but the student still has to do the lessons and put in the work of learning, and learning only tr
16.
by willmarch 10d ago
So your brother tried to make illegal moves while learning the game and it took your brother hundreds of games to get to be a decent player? I don't see how this contradicts anything I said...
17.
by willmarch 10d ago
Reading can kickstart the process, but you can also make random moves guided by some sort of system (such as a computer GUI) or learn by watching other players play. The overall point is that you learn through observation and lots of trial
18.
by willmarch 10d ago
That has not been my experience with new players, they regularly make invalid or incorrect moves even after detailed instructions especially in novel situations.
19.
by willmarch 10d ago
Yes, we all know that biological systems are more efficient than machines through billions of years of evolution and natural selection but the overall process is largely the same (interacting with an environment, learning from results, impr
20.
by willmarch 10d ago
I believe I remember reading it was based on Glaurung's code (which eventually evolved into what we now know as the juggernaut Stockfish).
21.
by willmarch 10d ago
Yes, but my point is that humans can’t even do the thing that the above comments are claiming humans can do (read a book or two and be decent at chess), and then they complain that LLMs can’t do the same thing (that humans can’t do either).
22.
by willmarch 10d ago
Yes, this is essentially how AlphaGo and AlphaZero algorithms work to train superhuman Go/chess/shogi agents. It’s an elegant algorithm that is analogous to how humans learn games.
23.
by willmarch 10d ago
If you gave a human a book or two on chess they would not become a decent player (they would be closer to 500-600 than 1100 ELO) and they would only get better after playing hundreds or thousands of games (often making illegal moves and mov
24.
by willmarch 10d ago
Do you have any solid evidence to back up anything you’re asserting here? In my understanding of history (pre-enlightenment), people didn’t gather around ideas that were “correct more often” but gathered around ideas and personalities that
25.
by willmarch 16d ago
How does punishing someone make crashes better? I would rather have fewer crashes because of a system that can't be punished than more crashes with punishment. Being able to punish someone doesn't change the fact that a crash happ
26.
by willmarch 20d ago
I was about to write the exact same sentiment. The desperation of AI denialists/skeptics/doomers on HN generally (and in this thread specifically) have reached toxic levels of delusion. They are still stuck in the denial/ange
27.
by willmarch 21d ago
Based on how humans grappled with these exact same questions (and still do) concerning other animals much closer to humans on the sentient gradient, it’s fair to assume we will have similar misunderstandings in regards to artificial intelli
28.
by willmarch 21d ago
Why?
29.
by willmarch 23d ago
But can you imagine it going right?
30.
by willmarch 24d ago
Wouldn't they just send another robot to fix or replace it?

More ›