attemptone

Doctor gave it to me and I reacted paradoxically to it. Worse depression and even more peculiar I picked up smoking again. I never felt such an urge to smoke in my life. Over the years I've been looking for an explanation for that reaction but wasnt able to find anything

I dont think so. Admittedtly I live in a peculiar bubble (mix of scientists, artists and programmers) but nobody that I know personally talks about chatbots in neutral terms, let alone in favorable ones.

If we take chatgpt and the ones from the other brands as neutral entities we as a society have a lot of work and self-reflection to do.

Quoting a chatbot in an article that is not related to a chatbot felt offputting and weird. I had to stop reading, because it somehow undermined any interest i had in the article

difficulties in life and genetics are more of a reason to decelop a severe addiction. Quality is probably not so much of importance - people still smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.

It feels like we forgot about the opiod epidemic, meth, crack..

Anyhow, I think this derailed enough. I just wanted to point out the weird protestant views of op.

Easy and rather unending access to drugs is not that hard to achieve. One might even argue it is easier to achieve as a poor person.

Besides what is a party related disease? Something like an STD, or more akin to a manic episode

Cancer, stroke, dementia; death doesn't care about your numbers, it cares about you

>Humanity has discarded natural selection thanks to modern medicine. Gene mutations that would have meant someone didn't survive now can be treated.

There is still selection going on and it is difficult to argue that it is not natural. The pressures we are exposed to are just not consistent with some idealized natural state and thus seem "unnatural".

Be careful, "natural selection" is a specific descriptor that describes a selection process that is contrasted by "artificial selection". The second one comes up from time to time in human context; we call it "eugenics".

I'd wager it is the strongest. Most of the arguments always argue in quantities. So and so much of energy waster per hour, this many job losses and that growing trend of delusions supported by LLMs.

We've already seen it with climate change. Arguing with statistical factoids is too ethereal for anyone and leads to some kind of fatigue. There is no emotional difference between 100 mWh and 10000 mWh. But a "I had to bring my dog to the vet because chatGPT told me to give it chocolate" will convince anyone to deeply distrust technology.

FAANG and its acolytes deprived us from actual connection with our environment. Judging the argument as weak is sad proof of that.

So how about instead of using the slot-machine that chatGPT is, we go visit our grandma, hug our dad or just get a new houseplant :)

I checked the BlEU-Score and Perplexity of popular models and both have stagnated around 2021. As a disclaimer this was a cursory check and I didn't dive into the details of how individuals scores were evaluated.

We were talking about linear improvements and I have yet to see it

>I feel the opposite, and pretty much every metric we have shows basically linear improvement of these models over time.

Wait, what kind of metric are you talking about? When I did my masters in 2023 SOTA models where trying to push the boundaries by minuscule amounts. And sometimes blatantly changing the way they measure "success" to beat the previous SOTA

I'm not sure what your comment is trying to convey. From my experience Meditations is basic and doesn't offer any substance. Popular Stoicism has a lot of legitimate criticism and is very often misused and glamorized in right-wing spaces. So the label "right-coded" seems appropriate.

All in all your comment caused some confusion. I know a handful of "extreme" left-wing, liberal arts people who are enamoured by "Fanged Noumena" whose author is the infamous nrx, 'hyper-racist' father of accelerationism Nick Land. So the politics don't seem to be the problem.

My gut instinct was that you have fallen for the meme/propaganda, as I have seen similar talking points being repeated on other sites. Maybe you can give me a more detailed explanations of what you're trying to get at.

How "subtle and insidious" is it really? I'd say it is shifting the blame of personal responsability to a website. Me and some of my friends use(d) 4chan and we never fell into the pipeline. To the contrary there is a strong left-wing camarederie. And I'd wager that we recognize subtle right-wing views more easily. One doesn't learn about these views by looking at a twitter screenshot but by engaging them.

We should stop treating right-wing ideology as a mind-parasite. And if we do it anyways, we should accept that some people want to get "infected".

This might be too nitpicky, but isn't believe exactly what one has in absence of evidence?

4chan and I'm not ashamed of it. Even though it is anonymous you really feel a sense of community. Approach it as a creative writing exercise or as being part of a hive-mind and you'll find enjoyment in it.

The amount of authentic and inspired posts is incredible. And yes it has it's ugly parts, they don't get a lot of traction though. I guess that part of its unattractiveness is deliberate. No advertisers want to touch it and that is probably why it survived for so long.

I beg to differ, I was interested and looked at flux pro. The rendering is impressive and looks like the output of a larger organization or a dedicated professional. But it's just that. It feels a bit like most people don't really interact with art, except on ads, movie poster and the like. And I guess those images are good for being displayed on a screen.

Maybe this (cliche) analogy will help my point. Art is like sex. Apparently most people have only seen porn and think the machines are incredible at sex. But they are confusing one for the other

Just the first few notes conjure an image of a slimebag. That kind of person that is only attentive if there is a personal gain to be made.

Sometimes they're astoundingly obvious and oblivious to the obviousness. I wonder why that is?

We have to look not far from our own field to see a replication crisis brewing. The results in ML papers are obviously moving in the same direction, all while beating SOTA by miniscule amounts.

IMO psychology became a lot less interesting when it tried to become more scientific.

The connection between beauty and pleasantness seems to be much weaker than suggested. There are things that are pleasent and lack any form of particular beauty. To mind come, interior decoration, roman statues, tiktok-videos..

And there are things that have inherent beauty partly because of their wretchedness and being unpleasant. Prime example would be greek tragedy. You and the protagonist know that it will end horribly and it is almost torture to see it unfold. But still, it is beautiful.

To go a bit deeper on attration and beauty. My personal experience showed me that beauty tends to be a (surprisingly low) threshold requirement for attraction.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, you're putting forward the notion that the human mind is reducible to matrix-multiplications and gradient descent.

This seems like such a strong claim, that I shouldn't be the one arguing for it. Rather you should bring strong evidence.

Tbh,I agree with on the manager anecdote (maybe more on the cynical side)

Very human, why should I trust some matrix-multiplication and gradient descent on deeply personal questions. For sure that guy in the mirror looks amicable, but you don't get much out of it when trying to flirt with a mirror.

I have to try out GPT-4, but I don't think it will be able to help me with my hobby. Like getting the feel of a painting right, whereas my friends have an easy time pointing out flaws or give recommendations beyond some technical irrelevancy

It is very hard to ignore the instinct of replying to the toxic statement with a sarcastic "no u".

Nevertheless I'll try to put this in neutral terms. Hopefully I get my point across without sounding too punchy.

I'm at work to work. It sometimes feels like managers and companies put you in a double-bind. On one hand I am supposed to be a factory-line worker, solving ticket after ticket. Make whatever metric go up so to speak. On the other I'm supposed to be part of a "community", get involved, be proactive, show my brilliance and creativity..

I've found that I have to place heavy emphasis on the code-monkey side of things. Even if the internal communication is the other way around (e.g. by the usage of the word toxic). Because creativity happens for its own sake, shipping product is a second thought at best. We framed the market in rigid and mechanical terms. And Ii the end we have to abide to that sterility in order to succeed.

Following research instead of the industry would this make a basic fact known for a while.

Another mystical text calls life the ultimate rohrschach test. You're not making (logical) arguments but rather you're showing your hand.

Keeping in line with the style of that comment: No, they're not.

Wouldn't a Transformer LM try to write in a more conversational style?

News of a bad thing happening to someone far away does not really impact survival as well.

The point was not about providing a good counter-example. I wanted to show that when one hand-waves away a behavoiur to an abstract selection criteria, one can easily come up with criteria that contradicts that notion.

We were also primed to seek comfort and stability. Because that ensured survival.

Like OOP said, that was a surface level thought. Finding evidence in evolutionary psychology seems like a big leap from that.

For me it is the other way around. Scientist sound like laymen in philosophy when they want to bring their data into a larger context. They stumble to explain why certain connection can/cannot be made and how they come up with the implications.

^This applies mostly to epistemology.

I like my philosophy in the format of what the youth calls 'schizo-posts'. Weird, out-there, grasping to find right words and closer to art than anything else.

For the same reason I dismiss any paper from a department that focuses on 'Unified field theory'

Or Computer Scientist that do research. Those eggheads can't see the forest because of all the trees. 'Is iT cOMputaBLE?' sure, but if you don't start the computation and are just theorizing it will never be computable. 'QuaDratic TIMe ComPlexiTY oF TRansfomerS?' Just buy more RAM and CPUs. What's the problem?

Not OP, but I see the also in problem with 'every possible entity'.

If you formulate it like that the prompt is decoupled from the LLM capabilities and can be anything. And if you restrict the prompt to cover only what the LLM understands the sentence becomes trivial.

Train a LLM with ASCII and try to get it to simulate anything that is outside of that (ancient sumerian script for example). If you only input ASCII it can generate every possible output in ASCII, most with very low probability but still.

After writing this, I'm not even sure what 'simulating' means in this context.