One counterpoint is do we really NEED to have brightly colored foods? It's a hard problem if you need a food to be bright red. But, that has to boil down to strictly to improving sales, right? Hypothetically, if all the artificial food dyes were banned, then all food companies would be on the same level playing field.

> More simply put: imagine that you have red, green, and blue light sources. What is the intensity of each one so that the resulting light matches a specific color on the spectrum?

> ...

> The CIE 1931 color space defines these RGB color matching functions. The red, green, and blue lines represent the intensity of each RGB light source:

This seems very oddly phrased to me. I would presume that what that chart is actually showing is the response for each color of cone in the human eye?

In which case it's not a question of "intensity of the light source" but more like "the visual response across different wavelengths of a otherwise uniform intensity light source"?

... fwiw, I'm not trying to be pedantic, just trying to see if I'm missing the point or not.

Context is "don't call it hallicination" picked up meme energy since https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 on the thesis that "Calling their mistakes ‘hallucinations’ isn’t harmless: it lends itself to the confusion that the machines are in some way misperceiving but are nonetheless trying to convey something that they believe or have perceived."

Which is meta-bullshit because it doesn't matter. We want LLMs to behave more factually, whatever the non-factuality is called. And calling that non-factuality something else isn't going to really change how we approach making them behave more factually.

Even if you can make it, even though it's theoretically possible that the warp bubble could move through space faster than the speed of light, it's a separate and completely open question as to how you might actually get it to move that fast to begin with.

And a secondary point, what if a large fraction of our intelligence comes from language, not the other way around. If that's true, then we might be well on our way to building the spark of an AGI.

I presume that's basically the same fundamental problem as rendering line art and star fields...

I thought the video very much did make that case. A single known cheating game had a 98% correlation (Sebastien Feller Paris 2010), other GMs have generally at most 75% average correlation. The analysis had more than half a dozen games with Niemann at 100% correlation. If that's cherry picking, it seems like there are a lot of cherries to pick.

Regardless if the bot is actually sentient, a portion of the population may _believe_ the bot is sentient.

If in practice the bot reflects back to each user their own views but perhaps more extreme, then this could be a terrible recipe for reinforcing and amplifying negative and socially destructive thinking -- equivalent to social media bubbles on steroids.

This can occur even without explicit bad actors trying to tip the scales toward a specific outcome. This kind of AI bot as-is has the potential to bring out the very worst in at least some percentage of the population.

(And even ONLINE may not be quite precise enough.)