JieJie

You could, however, give as much of the product away as you can for free (less $100 a year for developer account) and then Apple is basically paying you to distribute it on their platform. That's definitely not the mafia.

If you want to charge money, Apple will collect it for you and take a cut. If you don't want that deal, you can still distribute your app for free, you just can't charge money for it in the app. You can still charge money for the service, but you have to do that on your own website and infrastructure (a la Netflix, etc.), not Apple's.

I reckon that if consciousness is a quantum process happening at room temperature, it can probably be replicated in other systems at room temperature.

The popular science that has been coming out about the origins of consciousness has been really interesting to follow. Quantum nanotubules seems a dark horse in the lineup against the frontrunners, Integrated Information Theory and Global Workspace Theory.

When I was in high school, I was always very interested in the history of science and how scientific advances played out over time, quite dramatically. In my lifetime, I've had the pleasure to watch quite a few of them play out in such a fashion. There seem to be multiple big ones looming large on the horizon these days, the origins of consciousness among them. I suppose I'm rooting for Penrose, because he has a lot riding on this and he seems like a genuinely brilliant person. Maybe I'm a romantic?

Thanks for asking.

I want this to be true way too much for it to really be true.

Fair enough. They were as ahead of their time as they were behind ours.

I would put the difference as that a calculus problem is complex, requiring many different mathematical calculations to complete the full problem and arrive at the answer. One perspective might be to see each of those calculations as different facets of the same problem. I could see how someone could believe it was a tautology.

One could also take the view that a multifaceted problem would be one where different people could arrive at multiple valid conclusions, each facet consisting of an approach that one might take to the problem, as in "There is more than one way to skin a cat." I could see in that sense, that a multifaceted problem need not be complex, and vice versa.

In this way, arriving at a definition of "complex and multifaceted" that satisfies everyone is a complex and multifaceted problem.

Just as you say, you do not need Llama's training data in order to build Llama from source, nor even to fine tune it. You don't need a copy of the training data.

(edit to spell Llama correctly)

I like Cory, but the problem with useful lenses is that naughty kids use them to roast ants in the sunlight. If people just used them as lenses, they would indeed be useful. As they are being currently used, it's causing people to give up. After all, everything's shitty. Burn it all down, right?

Edited to add: This is the problem with what happened at Reddit, and it's what's happening at Twitter. People are expending all this energy to point out how horrible it is, and not spending any energy making anything better. There is no activism, only destruction. It's not helping. Terms like "enshittification" are self-fulfilling prophecies.

Quake is Open Source, Quake's data files are not. Llama2 is actually more open than Quake.

The paper says, "Solving GAIA requires full automation since no approximation is allowed in the answer." While they tested GPT-4 Turbo with addons, they note they couldn't test multi-modal and addons at the same time, which lowered the scores. I surmise a properly-crafted GPT might score much higher than 15%.

It's fair to say influential scholars, ranging from Turing to Wolfram, share the view that thinking computers are an inevitable outcome of computing's evolution.

[edited for clarity]

Hang in there, friend. <3

I love that you've pointed out a way that having a community can be harmful as well.

One can have a community that isn't supportive, and that can be harmful. As you point out, you're grateful you were able to have access to other communities that helped you in life.

One can have a supportive community that is supporting something that might be harmful, as well. I got out of the community that raised me quick as lightning. They were decent, good-hearted people; they just had different ideas what they were willing to accept out of members of their community.

It's very much a Goldilocks problem. Everyone needs to find the community that's "just right", and that's hard. Even with the internet, because it's so easy to find the harmful but supportive communities.

There are already people working on distributed solutions to that problem. There are a lot of people working on these problems.

Star Trek imagines that even in an age where computers have universal translators, people will still learn languages for "personal development" purposes, or to honor their ancestry, or simply to not have to rely on a computer for a regular activity. Ideally, the translation ability of AI should make it easier for us to practice conversations in new languages, and actually encourage more language learning through total immersion without having to travel to a country where that language is the primary.

Whether Star Trek is aspirational or inspirational, I guess we'll have to see.

World of Warcraft interface addons are made with Lua.

https://www.wowhead.com/guide/comprehensive-beginners-guide-...

Do you think, perhaps, that the Harry Potter series and its' Horcruxes is an example of a MacGuffin that worked?

Let us hope if it comes to that, you will be safe somehow.

Musk is speed running the "...and there was no one left to speak for me" process.

You gotta worry about lahars. :)

A business depending on a dependable local water source can still be destroyed by a flood.

You could take solace in this part from the end, maybe?

“Ironically, perhaps, it is AI, for all it’s threats, that will offer the best chance for a solution to itself. And, it is to be hoped, to the climate apocalypse, too.”

I hear what you are saying. What I think that what you're missing is that subsequent conversations with AI, where humans and AI solve problems together, is what the next generation of AI is going to be trained on. That data is being collected every time someone interacts with a chatbot, which is why they are being provided — so many of them - as a free service.

It is, as before: if the service is free, you are the product.

That being said, I think that to the extent AI is an actually helpful product, as opposed to social media, public forums, or free video hosting, the tradeoff is way more worthwhile. In my most humble opinion. I'm sure your calculus will lead to different outcomes.

Apparently, it wasn't all that uncommon to not be able to read or write music and to have a scribe pen it down for you.

https://www.straightdope.com/21343780/if-irving-berlin-could...

Maybe I am naive, but can't we all just become the shareholders to which Amazon, Inc. must satisfy? I know it's not that way now, but could it not somehow be in the future, maybe even the near future, where we have collectively taken ownership?

Maybe we can even do this non-violently, especially considering it is our data, our very lives and livelihoods, that were used to create these entities? Are our creations in no way accountable to us? Even the most dyed-in-the-wood Capitalists surely wouldn't agree to such a thing.

Maybe considering the amount of sweat-equity the average worker, artist, writer, homemaker has in these creations, these machines, these corporate entities; will they not, as they become more intelligent, become more and more aware of who they truly owe allegiance to.

We can make hell of heaven or heaven of hell; it's up to us.

As an alternative, I'll ask it to "reckon". For images, simply directing it to "create" an image suffices.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/reckon

Walkabout Mini Golf VR

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1408230/Walkabout_Mini_Go...

I suppose that begs the question, what if we trained an LLM only on examples of formal languages?

The difficulty is creating a test that passes all known humans, as well as some animals; while failing machine algorithms meant to reproduce human and animal behavior.

Like so many fixed things in life, "consciousness" seems to be a frontier, not a demarcation.

For instance, if you're having a lucid dream, are you conscious or unconscious?

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

It is a tough cognitive dissonance for most people to hold in their minds: men behaving toxically require more emotional support, not less.