It’s almost as if there is a financial incentive to enshitify everything.

I think the death penalty could be just, but, unfortunately our justice system is too capricious and dysfunctional to be worthy of administering it.

Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, testified in defense of evolution at a trial in Arkansas then was on the same plane as Bill Clinton during Clinton’s interregnum between governorships. Clinton said he “would have vetoed that bill”, meaning the bill mandating equal time for creationism.

🔥

If lemmy was around while you were 16 you are clearly a child. Now, pass me my cane, I want to shake it while I yell at those clouds.

I’m gradually concluding that every decision in computer UI has been wrong. Peak UI happened in the 1990s; it’s been downhill ever since. People think terminals are scary, but come on—asking ChatGPT “how do I do this?” and getting three lines that have worked unchanged since 1989 is not harder than watching some tech-bro explain which menus to click… menus that get rearranged every six months so they can find new ways to wedge ads into your ribbon.

Look, the hospital is going to put me in enough debt that I’m going to have to give them one (or two) kidneys if I don’t want them to end up with my house. No time to pay back any loans right now.

Danm, I’m checking myself into the burn ward currently. I wish I could up my social credit score making memes like this 😉.

Actually, that’s a very reasonable speculation. I hadn’t thought of that angle.

Yes, that is what I read roguetrick as saying. The headline should include the lede “viral load undetectable, even after therapeutics stops”, however, this lede gets buried in the article, instead of highlighted in the headline.

Well apparently fedora w/ kde is wrong or something. I have no idea why.

I mean I use Ubuntu with I3, which is obviously a better choice and all /s.

I’m sorry, but this reads to me like “I am certain I am right, so evidence that implies I’m wrong must be wrong.” And while sometimes that really is the right approach to take, more often than not you really should update the confidence in your hypothesis rather than discarding contradictory data.

But, there must be SOMETHING which is a good measure of the ability to reason, yes? If reasoning is an actual thing that actually exists, then it must be detectable, and there must be a way to detect it. What benchmark do you purpose?

You don’t have to seriously answer, but I hope you see where I’m coming from. I assume you’ve read Searle, and I cannot express to you the contempt in which I hold him. I think, if we are to be scientists and not philosophers (and good philosophers should be scientists too) we have to look to the external world to test our theories.

For me, what goes on inside does matter, but what goes on inside everyone everywhere is just math, and I haven’t formed an opinion about what math is really most efficient at instantiating reasoning, or thinking, or whatever you want to talk about.

To be honest, the other day I was convinced it was actually derivatives and integrals, and, because of this, that analog computers would make much better AIs than digital computers. (But Hava Siegelmann’s book is expensive, and, while I had briefly lifted my book buying moratorium, I think I have to impose it again).

Hell, maybe Penrose is right and we need quantum effects (I really really really doubt it, but, to the extent that it is possible for me, I try to keep an open mind).

🤷‍♂️

Gary Marcus is certainly good. It’s not as if I think say, LeCun, or any of the many people who think that LLMs aren’t the way are morons. I don’t think anyone thinks all the problems are currently solved. And I think long time lines are still plausible, but, I think dismissing short time line out of hand is thoughtless.

My main gripe is how certain people are about things they know virtually nothing about. And how slap dashed their reasoning is. It seems to me most people’s reasoning goes something like “there is no little man in the box, it’s just math, and math can’t think.” Of course, they say it with a lot fancier words, like “it’s just gradient decent” as if human brains couldn’t have gradient decent baked in anywhere.

But, out of interest what is your take on the Stochastic Parrot? I find the arguments deeply implausible.

So, how would you define AGI, and what sorts of tasks require reasoning? I would have thought earning the gold medal on the IMO would have been a reasoning task, but I’m happy to learn why I’m wrong.

I don’t see why AGI must be conscious, and the fact that you even bring it up makes me think you haven’t thought too hard about any of this.

When you say “novel answers” what is it you mean? The questions on the IMO have never been asked to any human before the Math Olympiad, and almost all humans cannot answer those quesion.

Why does answering those questions not count as novel? What is a question whose answer you would count as novel, and which you yourself could answer? Presuming that you count yourself as intelligent.

How do you know we’re not remotely close to AGI? Do you have any expertise on the issue? And expertise is not “I can download Python libraries and use them” it is “I can explain the mathematics behind what is going on, and understand the technical and theoretical challenges”.

In the US, sure, but there have been class revolts in other nations. I’m not saying they lead to good outcomes, but king Louis XVI was rich. And being rich did not save him. There was a capitalist class in China during the cultural revolution. They didn’t make it through. If it means we won’t go extinct, why can we have a revolution to prevent extinction?