CooCooCaCha

And the brain is literally only producing electrochemical signals.

I don’t see how tokens can’t produce speech or track metabolic needs. You can talk to chatgpt can’t you? Or do you mean literally talking? Because that’s not a brain function, that’s the mouth, vocal chords, and lungs.

It would be different if AI was known to be reliable but it isn’t, so this is less of a random failure and more a symptom of jagged intelligence.

And with every one of these there’s always an attempt to minimize the problem by saying it’s just one silly failure.

Is being asked to read a clock really a gotcha?

I’ve been learning houdini recently, and I have to agree.

In terms of nodes and simulation, Houdini is still lightyears ahead of blender. I say this as someone who loves blender and views the programs as complementary. But still, I was shocked at how deep Houdini is.

With that said, learning Houdini is an unrelenting gauntlet. Blender isn’t exactly easy to learn but it’s a walk in the park compared to Houdini. Even something as simple as creating a material and assigning it to an object is an exercise in frustration.

That suggests a straightforward mapping between context -> program. Maybe for trivial programs but I don’t see how you can argue that for sufficiently complex programs.

Reasoning models perform better than non-reasoning models because they’re able to refine their code in multiple steps. That allows any part of the program to influence any other part of the program, not just from start -> end.

Human thinking serves a similar purpose. Basically intelligence needs to be able to backtrack if you want better performance.

MIT is simple, open, and common which is a big benefit for indie projects, small studios, and anyone with limited legal resources.

It means there’s lots of info on the internet explaining how to use the license and they can be relatively certain they won’t accidentally fall into some legal trap or misinterpret the license. It also means there’s legal precedent around the license.

All that to say, custom licenses are actually a big issue for small players.

I find this whole conversation baffling. Licenses and contracts are not a replacement for being a decent person.

Because there’s a clear mismatch between the value generated from Box2d vs the value the creator receives, and that’s common for open-source in general.

It would be common decency to donate even a small portion of that $500 million, even if the license technically doesn’t require it.

The root level comment is talking about their general vision of healthcare. We’re talking about ideal goals here.

Whether midjourney helps with those goals or not is a related, but different conversation thread.

The only relevant implication is the word “useful”. Clearly we want useful data, that’s obvious.

Because we’ve been able to spend more and more on the next miniaturization. That does not seem infinitely sustainable or even physically possible to sustain indefinitely.

Capitalism is trending towards uncertainty.

- Job security is getting lower.

- Insurance is getting spotty, will this be covered? Maybe?

- Companies are testing dynamic pricing.

- The rise of prediction markets.

Eventually the economy is going to be constantly gambling on our lives. Every ounce of certainty is a potential money making opportunity.

I bet the API pricing helps pay for search users

I think people are sick of hearing about AI but they’ll embrace this change for the simple reason that they hate computers and want to feel like they’re taking to a human.

I think this will be one of those things that the hacker news crowd lambasts and calls a mistake but will either be neutral or seen as a positive to your average user.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to build a frontier model and how much money it takes to enable R&D at the cutting edge?

Yeah self-interest occurs across different time scales and consists of a mixture of logical and emotional factors.

It’s also subjective and dependent on the persons values, beliefs, etc.

Self-interest includes chemical dependence and emotional satisfaction.

The broader point is that self-interest is not purely logical because humans are not purely logical beings.

Appeals to individualism and capitalism, why am I not surprised.

I’m so intensely sick of this attitude. We are losing things with technology. Important things. Human things.

Looking under a microscope at one specific instance and saying “eh it’s not that bad, you’re overreacting” is disingenuous or at least putting your head in the sand.

Anthropic recently changed their take-home test specifically to be more “out-of-distribution” and therefore more resistant to AI so they can assess humans.

I’m so tired of “there’s nothing preventing”, and “humans do that too”. Modern AI is just not there. It’s not like humans and has difficulties with adapting to novelty.

Whether transformers can overcome that remains to be seen, but it is not a guarantee. We’ve been dealing with these same issues for decades and AI still struggles with them.

So there’s no difference at all? Making everybody have brown hair is the same as giving everyone down syndrome?

All analogies are flawed and I think you’re taking the wrong message here.

If doctors gave mothers a vaccine that prevented down syndrome, at a high level, that would be the same as putting an anti-down syndrome drug in the water supply.

The point of the example is not about whether putting things in the water supply is good or bad.

This post is about curing down syndrome though.

Saying “but they’re happy” in this context is implying that we shouldn’t try to cure it, which is obviously ridiculous.

If I told you I put a chemical into the water supply that gave people brown hair you’d probably think I am weird and stupid but not evil.

If I told you the chemical gave people down syndrome you’d probably think I am evil.

Whenever these topics come up there’s always people saying things like “but what if people like it?” And I can’t help but wonder, really? Are we really having this conversation? The answers are obvious so why pretend they’re not?

I don’t believe anybody actually thinks this way.

Taste isn’t a social construct, it’s a function of how your brain is structured/wired. How it’s applied is a social construct.

I disagree taste is a very real thing and there are multiple levels to taste from shallow and easily changed, to deep and relatively constant.

Shallow taste is stuff like popular trends that come and go, and hating the taste of beer until you’ve had it a few times (not saying everyone has to like beer, that’s not the point).

Deeper taste is more like your deeply held cognitive biases. Like a current of a river or the valleys cut into a mountain. It’s the shape of your cognition that determines how information flows through your brain.

Deeper taste is heavily connected to you and your identity. It’s part of who you are. I think most people would agree that parts of themselves change very slowly, and some not at all.

I know there are parts of me that feel the same as when I was a child. To deny the existence of taste is to deny the existence of a “you” that is different from others.

Depends on what you think is valid.

The process you’re describing is humans extending our collective distribution through a series of smaller steps. That’s what the “shoulders of giants” means. The result is we are able to do things further and further outside the initial distribution.

So it depends on if you’re comparing individual steps or just the starting/ending distributions.

It’s really not that crazy.

React itself is a frontend-agnostic library. People primarily use it for writing websites but web support is actually a layer on top of base react and can be swapped out for whatever.

So they’re really just using react as a way to organize their terminal UI into components. For the same reason it’s handy to organize web ui into components.

CoT is upstream of building a chess engine.

Chess engines don’t grow on trees, they’re built by intelligent systems that can think, namely human brains.

Supposedly we want to build machines that can also think, not just regurgitate things created by human brains. That’s why testing CoT is important.

It’s not actually about chess, it’s about thinking and intelligence.