Ireallyapart

> LLMs are not particularly good at arithmetic, counting syllables, or recognizing haikus, though, because (contrary to the thesis of the article) they don’t magically acquire whatever ability would “simplify” predicting the next token.

LLMs understand it to a certain extent. It's more then "predicting" the next token. When people ascribe "predicting the next token" it's a niave and unintelligent description to cover up what they don't understand.

I mean you can describe a human brain as simply wetware, a jumble of signals and chemical reactions that twitch muscles and react to pressure waves in the air and light. But obviously there is a higher level description of the human brain that is missing from that description.

The same thing could be said about LLMs. I can tell you this, researchers completely understand token prediction that much can be said. What we don't currently understand is the high level description. Perhaps it's not something we can understand as we've never been able to understand human consciousness at a high level either.

That's the thing with people. Nobody actually understands the high level description of a fully trained LLM. People are lambasting others because they "think" they understand when they only actually understand the low level primitives. We understand assembly, but you don't understand the Operating system written in assembly.

Take this for example:

     Me: 4320598340958340958340953095809348509348503480958340958304985038530495830 + 1
     chatGPT: 4320598340958340958340953095809348509348503480958340958304985038530495830 + 1 equals 4320598340958340958340953095809348509348503480958340958304985038530495831.

The chances of chatGPT memorizing or even predicting the next tokens here are in a probability too low to even consider. There are so many possible numbers here even numbers that aren't true but have a "higher probability" of being close to the truth from a token/edit-distance standpoint. It's safe to say, from a scientific standpoint, chatGPT in this scenario understands what it means to add 1.

Realize that this calculation results in an overflow. chatGPT needs symbolic understanding to perform the feat it did above.

But there are, of course, things it gets wrong. But again we don't truly understand what's going on here. Is it lying to us? Perhaps it can't differentiate between just a generated statistical token or a actual math equation. It's hard to say. But from the example above, by probability, we know that an aspect of true understanding and ability exists.

Doubtful. The developer is really old school. Additionally he's already spent years on integrating his huge lore generator into the fabric of the game. An LLM will throw a wrench into the whole process.

There's no books man. This stuff is too new. But all the components are in place and exist.

This guy just demonstrated what's required to generate a theme, and it's not far off from extrapolating further from that in using a LLM to generate Lore and just some random maze generator to create the base control image.

This is good for procedural generated 2D worlds. Think Hollow Knight, but expansive across infinite environments. Just randomly generate the control image and have the LLM generate the theme. Combine that with LLM generated lore and the possibilities are unlimited.

We have the technology to do this right now.

> The article claims that Chinese army researchers were at the lab researching viral weapons. That sounds like ill-intent to me.

The US does weapons research it does not mean ill intent. The Chinese does weapons research for the same reason the US does it.

Loma Linda is a bluezone because of diet and community. They are very far away from the ocean. The environment their is more desert rather then Mediterranean climate.

How do I know? I live in LA county about a couple miles due west of loma linda. That city is really inland and not considered to be near the ocean at all.

Also moisture is trapped in the enclosure between eye and screen.

of course they are terrified. Not being terrified is delusional. It's apple.

weird. I never had a problem with pyrex. Must be something to do with the environment the glass in your specific case is exposed to.

Get the expensive pyrex glass.

aluminum may be toxic too.

>That's not how we gain extraordinary trust (remember, Kyrie Irving is pretty darn famous).

Nope. It is how you gain extraordinary trust. It really depends on what they are famous for. There are many famous people or scholars who you respect and trust due to their fame. You trust them, because others trust them.

Fame can also cause distrust too. But it does cause trust as well.

>When it comes to extraordinary claims like this, I usually go back to the "implementation": why and how did another civilization solve all of the physics problems of interstellar flight (if it did), how did they go undetected by other countries and amateurs, and why did they not simply reach out in an attempt to communicate?

This is too much speculation. There are an infinite number of explanations here. Better to follow the the chain of events from the anomalous claim and start piecing together things forwards rather then just claim it's impossible because you can't think of any valid way for it to happen.

Additionally the claim itself is "extraordinary" so basically there is likely no mundane explanation for it if the claim is true.

>At that point I can even buy that these "intelligence officers" believe what they are saying, but I still don't buy that their claims are true.

So that's the first step right? They believe what they are saying. So from their perspective they witnessed extraordinary evidence. So what made them believe it? What did they actually see? Are they correct? Even if following this thread leads to something different then their claim, one can still learn something interesting.

Closed mindedness often involves logic that works backwards. You need to move forwards. If you see a path, moving forwards means following the path. Moving backwards means ignoring the path because you made a guess that there's nothing at the end of the path.

>Much less commonly said, but still true, is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary trust.

What you say is true. But here's the problem. 99% of people in this world are people you don't know well and don't know personally and they aren't famous enough for you to trust them.

Thus by probability an extraordinary claim that is true is highly, highly likely to come from someone you will never have any form of "extraordinary" trust for. So your statement, which I quoted, is, from a practical standpoint, completely useless. By your logic all extraordinary claims in existence will all pretty much be mistrusted by you. It's a statement of complete denial of anything that sounds outlandish. It's the definition of being closed minded.

Being extremely closed minded tends to be better than being extremely open minded where you believe every freaking thing you hear. But the best place to be in is at neither extreme. Rather then deny all extraordinary claims you should be skeptical.

You need to search for techniques in which will help you determine whether you CAN or CANNOT trust someone you do not already have "extraordinary" trust for.

To which I throw this statement at you:

If someone makes a statement without any ulterior motive that results in net benefit to them, you can place more merit on the fact that they are telling you what they believe to be the truth.

So take for example a stranger tells you there's a bomb in the building and you have to get out. You get the hell out because that stranger had nothing to gain from telling there's a bomb.

If a person with a camera is recording you and he told you there's a bomb in the building. Well that's different right? The key difference here is that in one situation there's a clear ulterior motive. In the other situation there was no motive.

Follow the motive.

The person making the claim... what is his motive?