blueprint

Feynman, a famous man from an older era who tried to inspire, remind, and spur people...

> macroscopic objects

It's not about scale at all though. It's just that small systems tend to be observed with this other, specific property that we associate with causing "quantum" like effects. Not only do those effects happen at mesoscopic scale but aside from gravity, quantum theory already can be and is used to describe things on large scales too. Classical computers and desks are still "quantum" systems. Recently theory and experiments have developed to connect with gravity in many ways. I'm more confused when people say something is mysterious. They're usually referring to apparent randomness but I think even that is explained already with partitions or even just wave math (complementarity).

> nobody really knows what they are talking about

Could you form a specific question that you're wondering about? (Have you looked at condensed matter physics yet?)

Then they should decide not to treat certain things and have better criteria around that than choosing to bury their heads in the sand and letting people die out of their ignorance.

> It can be made to any degree of reliability you desire.

Absolutely false statement.

What people hope 'AGI' is would at least be able to make confirmations of fact and know what verification means. LLMs don't have 'knowledge' and do not actually 'reason'. Heuristic vs simulation. One can be made to approach the other, but only on a specific and narrow path. Someone who knows something can verify that they know it. An "intelligence" implies it is doing operations based on rules, but LLMs cannot conform themselves to rules that require them to reason everything through. What people have hoped AGI would be could be trained to reliably adopt the practice of reasoning. Necessary but maybe not sufficient, and I'm just gonna blame that on the term "intelligence" actually indicating a still relatively low level of what I will "consciousness".

What version did you use? What errors did you see? Don't get me wrong, I've spent 20 years with it, and there was a learning curve - but isn't that the case with many good tools? Again, don't get me wrong, I have some feedback for Apple, and there's a reason why we affectionately call it a harsh mistress. But that doesn't mean it's somehow not one of the best designed, best functioning, and most powerful suites for programming with certain other incidentally very well engineered SDKs etc. And yes, things may have gone downhill a little bit, especially at the scale they're at now. If we could talk about Xcode of, say, 2014, it'd be a less ambiguous conversation.

> Hasn't everybody at least tried everything significant just because?

No, not in the slightest. I would call this one the most dangerous and unfortunate fallacies that so many intelligent people have ever accepted and been cheated by. If it were true, you'd know everything important there is to know, and be a master of philosophy, and would have many answers to some basic questions which most people have been told have no good or concrete or verifiable answers.

How many of those people who spend their time using other IDEs on other OSs (where Xcode doesn't run) spend any amount of time using Xcode and therefore have the requisite experience to be able to know that it's generally excellent?

And when you say "you hear", you really mean "you", not "me". I hear it a lot.

What motivated your comment?

I know Xcode might struggle every now and then with some of the things you're talking about and I'm not saying that I don't have any feedback for Apple, but Xcode is one of the most powerful and well designed development and instrumentation environments I've ever used.

no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together. and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you. We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe. When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said.

The question is not whether an AGI knows that it is an AGI. The question is whether it knows that it is not one. And you're missing the fact that there's no such thing as it here.

If you go around acting hostile to good people that's still not very intelligent. In fact, I would question if you have any concept of why you're doing it at all. chances are you're doing it to run from yourself not because you know what you're doing.

Anyway, you're just speculating and the fact of the matter is that you don't have to speculate. If you actually wanted to verify what I said, it would be very easy to do so. it's not a surprise that someone who doesn't want to know something will have deaf ears. so I'm not going to pretend that I stand a chance of convincing you when I already know that my argument is accurate.

don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI.

and as for my slam dunk, any attempt to argue against the existence of truth, automatically validates your assumption of its existence. so don't make the mistake of assuming I had to argue about it. I was merely stating a fact.

It's very simple. The model itself doesn't know and can't verify it. It knows that it doesn't know. Do you deny that? Or do you think that a general intelligence would be in the habit of lying to people and concealing why? At the end of the day, that would be not only unintelligent, but hostile. So it's very simple. And there is such a thing as "the truth", and it can be verified by anyone repeatably in the requisite (fair, accurate) circumstances, and it's not based in word games.

is Chen in custody?

If not, why wouldn't he just transfer the funds to a new seed?

I guess they have a quantum computer.

I'm curious how their search queries were able to be found, if anyone happens to know details about this.

You mean the country which disappears its own citizens for expressing doubt at their "leadership"?

was he exposed to Roundup?

lol Yeah they need to fix that. I thought it was some new kind of phone stand.

perhaps in a similar way that it is impossible to directly "observe" a wavefunction without collapsing it into an observale "effect".

i'm not appealing to anything except for asking the dude who replied to me for a damn reference when I'm the one who was friends with researchers who told me about their own work. Learn how conversations work instead of trying to shit on other people. Jerk.

they ran numbers on it. Do you have any references to support what you're saying?

A couple researchers have told me that it's not necessary to even reach 51%. It's probably something closer to 35% to maintain the ability to perform censorship etc

I don't think I said anything about the lack of existence of complexity. But all those complex things operate by one very simple, fundamental principle, and among other truths we call that principle The Truth. afaict this truth is called a law and it can be found through logical derivations and proven by contradiction. (It has been stated repeatedly by different philosophers in history.

By the way, you claim that the movement of things exists, but that is simply something you saw from your perspective without confirming the reality of that. Buddha would beg to differ given that according to him in scriptures, things were never born and don't decay etc.

If we assume that anything was actually born, then I say that it operates by the law of cause and effect, and the theory of repetition. These two laws create all phenomena and all other laws aiui. they're very simple.

And there is a difference between complexity of structures, and a given persons difficulty in understanding it. I do get the impression that you know this, but my point is that even what we call complex could be of the same difficulty to comprehend for someone who can see the universe whole. "for a real master of philosophy there is no difference in the difficulty of questions."

if you still believe that I'm missing your point please tell me again, so we can confirm.

for some reason, this reminds me of Mahler's "autistic" stage of child development.

Your question is very simple to solve for someone who has done enough real philosophy lol :) a lie is when you tell something differently than it is. the truth means "what exists as it is".

If you say that "it is difficult to find the truth", aside from the blatant subjectivity of your claim, then , if we believe your statement, then that itself must be a "truth". And yet you invalidate your own claim immediately by saying "different for different persons". Well, if that statement is true, then it invalidates itself as well.

You cannot disprove the existence of truth by using a system that relies on truth and falsehood.

it reaches for stuff

"Hugging face" is also a pretty weird name

empathy is not the only thing a therapist provides - they have eyes to actually check out the client's actual life - thus the propensity for "AI" to encourage clients' delusions

who says we can't change society that quickly? you made up your mind on that yourself without consulting anyone else about their wishes.

in the USA we elect people frequently and the entire population just up and goes along with it.

so therapy for you will be about more than just empathy. not everything you think or do or say is adaptive.

to your point, not everyone wants to give up their falsehood. yet, honesty is a massive cornerstone of therapy progress.

i would simply have to start with empathy for you to welcome you in if you won't respond with security to the world telling you that you internalized a negative message (relationship) from the past (about people).

I wouldn't exactly call it intelligent to lie to a court ;) Perhaps another descriptor would be more precise? For that matter, can one be "truly lucid" if one lies in such a manner?

pretty sure the cringe doesn't stop there. It wouldn't surprise me if this is not the only thing that they are attempting to game and hide from their users.

The Max subscription with fake limits increase comes to mind.

kind of reminds me how they said they were increasing platform capabilities with Max and actually reduced them while charging a ton for it per month. Talk about a bait and switch. Lord help you if you tried to cancel your ill advised subscription during that product roll out as well - doubly so if you expect a support response.