We understand consciousness well enough to say that a rock is not conscious.

We understand consciousness well enough to say that a human is conscious.

The existence of gray area does not mean that white and black do not exist.

We understand LLMs and consciousness well enough to say, at bare minimum, that it's incredibly unlikely that LLMs are conscious.

I know I am sentient. If I am not, then the word has no meaning, and it is utterly pointless to try to even talk about sentience in any context.

Therefore, humans are sentient.

Human sentience may be weird, it may be mysterious, it may be emergent, and it may be ephemeral...but it is, without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, real.

For instance, it's (unlikely, but) theoretically possible that it would require simulating them down to the level of subatomic particles, with perfect accuracy.

Right now, we're simulating them at a much, much higher and more abstract level, and AFAIK we barely even have the processing power to do that for the time being. So an artificial consciousness from simulated neurons may (again, assuming it's possible—which is a decent assumption, but not a certainty) take decades or even more for us to be able to achieve.

Human: "Act like you're in pain."

Computer: "Aaugh! It hurts! Why?! No more!"

Human: "OMG! The computer feels pain!!"

Don't try to retool your entire business, or personal life, around subscriptions to the big LLM companies.

Continue to value human intelligence, skill, and work.

Don't invest in companies that are retooling their entire business around subscriptions to the big LLM companies. Or, for that matter, in any company too tied up in the "AI boom". Yes, that might mean taking money out of big tech stocks for a little while.

a) when humans generate passwords, they are not perfectly random; they are memorable, which means they often use dictionary words, which are vulnerable to dictionary attacks

b) even if they use moderately good passwords, that can't be broken with the dictionary, there's a high chance of password reuse, and many passwords have already been leaked

c) when password managers generate truly random passwords, they run into exactly the problem in the article

You are so focused on the math of the situation, you ignore the practical realities.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49914149

Points: 70

# Comments: 33

One of the most fundamental principles of the left is that everyone is equal.

Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.

Sure, there are some individuals on the left (or ostensibly so) who are either bad at practicing that or who genuinely don't believe in it, but that doesn't make it not part of the core tenets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

I am saying that if you want to justify saying that a particular statistical anomaly that occurred during the 2020-2023 timeframe is not wholly or nearly wholly caused by the pandemic and its direct and indirect effects, you better have some damn good data to prove it.

Between 2018 and 2022, we had a global pandemic hit!

The only reason we were "digitalizing education" is because millions of people were getting sick and dying. Millions more lost their jobs.

Trying to blame any single aspect of what happened during that period, like moving to remote learning, is hopelessly myopic and blinkered.

https://xkcd.com/927/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49840741

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

...No, that's why the ICC requires us to sign on.

We voluntarily accept a joint sovereignty over each other.

The problem is that for the past 80 years or so, the US has gotten very, very comfortable forcing other nations to accept our sovereignty. Over them. The powers that be really, really don't want to give that up and be accountable to anyone.

That's not sustainable, it's not ethical, and it's guaranteed to lead to more conflict down the line.

The ICC as currently constituted may be imperfect, but IMO it is a good step forward toward a world where we are all accountable to each other, and we collectively enforce an agreed-upon set of ethics for every country's operations.

I think it's fairly straightforward to anyone approaching this discussion in good faith.

> All you're asking for is a self prompting AI that does what it wants.

I'm not asking for any of this.

I'm saying that comparing LLMs to a "demon" is hopelessly hyperbolic.

> Also, you're not really that independent and thinking-for-yourself.

I fully understand the effects that our upbringing, environment, and even diet have on our personalities and choices. (In a broad sense; I'm not trying to say I'm some kind of genius expert on that stuff.)

I also have agency, self-awareness and independence that an LLM cannot have, and trying to confuse that matter by pointing to the ways in which we are influenced by the above is disingenuous and unhelpful.

> It's kind of funny how we've lived in that science fantasy world for decades and you've just grown used to and bored of it. Look back a century or two and those people would think we live in the world of gods.

Again, you're trying to shift and deflect the conversation away from the fact that LLMs are nothing like Skynet/Durandal/HAL 9000 by drawing specious comparisons. The fact that we have technology today that the sci-fi authors of the mid-20th century could not even imagine (eg, smartphones, internet) does not in any way negate the fact that AGI/ASI remain in the realm of science fiction, much like demons remain in the realm of fantasy.