I was gonna joke "how many months ago" but it seriously was months ago LMAO

I think the average school computer lab is better set up than OpenAI

Dredging

I also think the big data approach will never quite reach their goal. There will always be a wall infront of your goal that you will never be able to cross even with infinite data. An LLM isn't good because it generates a really kick ass token, it's good because it generates a lot of good tokens, and the system around it manages the context well enough so it doesn't get confused.

Don't be so quick to downplay process oriented AI due to latency

What's interesting is that there are a set of people who are "in charge" and can as they wish arbitrarily set the goalposts to the thing that they happen to be best at. While this might be satisfying for an Humanity vs AI narrative, it's concerning for an us vs them one. Are these people really special? or do they just change the rules of the game so that outsiders (human or AI) can't win.

If it was you or I that solved this problem our would our rewards stop at $1M? Or would we get authority? If the achievement earns that for an insider but becomes 'just a solved problem' when an outsider does it, what exactly is being rewarded?

You can't have fully realistic VR You can't have AI/Robots that replace all work. A bulldozer makes a bad livestreamer. You'd need synths, indistinguishable from humans that both supply and can't receive(!) emotional labor, clearly an impossible task. Maybe most people will get all their needs from semi-realistic VR and AI-tiktok, but some won't.

Even now some people are hospitalized due to talking to AI too much. The thing currently needs a lot of labor from humans

>Work: Using physical or mental effort to do a task

This used to be

>Work means using physical effort to do a task

In the future it will be (not saying LLMs will bring us there)

>Work means using physical, mental or emotional effort to do a task

Women are well ahead on this since men effectively automate the physical and mental labor for them. There was a big advantage for men, then it sorta equalized but still in men's favor, but during the AI age it will truly be a woman's world. However you route it it's going to be a very long walk from "no more coding" to "we are all babbling toddler with synth mommies".

Complaining about the inevitable toxic noise when the same boneheaded development decisions are made over and over like everyone has gone insane. You don't have to build a death trap on the land your cat and children roam.

You could as models improve continue to remove more and more training data, what happens when there is no more data left to remove but a running system still outperforms humans? I think you grossly overvalue data.

But in any reasonable definition they are all part of the same system, so it really is just noise, what seems like a tautology to you because you can't step out of the system. In your claim you have to assume that the force behind the panic wasn't the same force that created those issues. Why did this force create those issues, how did they become issues? Because someone randomly decided to optimize for a single goal. Y2K and ozone only became issues when they affected that single goal, functionally that force was amoral or singularly moral. The tautology can be reframed as: An adaptive system responds to threats to it's continued functioning.

People will laugh about it since the system wormed it's way into many people's head using various rewards (ideological, social, tangible). What concern me is that the system now gives us the language to describe it at the meta level, which means it's already a level higher. So likely there either doesn't exist human comprehensible language that can actually critique the system or the system has already moved everyone far away from the space that would lead to generation of that vocabulary. Best case scenerio it's just exceedingly confident in it's rewards (typical indoctrination/assimilation) but I think it's reasonable at this point to assume we are in the pessimistic "epistemic tarpit" scenario.

Having no enforcement would be cheaper too. What makes arbitration preferable is whatever meaningful protection it provides. So what protections does it give consumers in this case, and why are those adequate? "It's more efficient" doesn't answer that. There are practical limits to the number of individual claims Sony can lose. Of course if it's within their rights Sony would very much want to steal ~$1,000 from everyone that uses their services.

This all assumes that the arbitrator isn't getting kickbacks which they are more likely to than the traditional legal system.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49673307

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I think the mathematics community should realign their goals with humanities, not just declare themselves a "mini humanity", this means expanding human taste, intuition and communicating systems and their associated structural truths in a human friendly way. Bye-bye standardized education you won't be missed.

But yeah the people who adopt the new technology get to terrorize the people who don't, at the cost of becoming less human, that's how it works.