calf

That commenter was already obnoxious under this thread, and today they are relitigating Searle-Turing via Hofstadter GEB slop, so they are also an ignoramus.

So the credibility of your friends weighs more than the credibility of tenured professors at world-class academic institutions, got it.

Clearly your degrees did not make you immune from fallacies and simplistic reductions.

"Synthesis" is obviously of different kinds. A duck has a different level of intelligence than a human. We do not say both are "just doing synthesis".

So the question is how can you be so disingenuous about such terminology? Answer, you are relying on a classic form of scientistic reductivism.

The fact that intelligence is physical, emerges from chemistry, etc,. has nothing to do with there being also objectively different levels of computational sophistication.

If you want to be scientific about that you could look at neuropsychology on one hand and computability/complexity on the other. There are levels and so equivocation of "mentorship" as "prompting" and fallacious variants thereof is a) frankly intellectually obtuse, b) par for the course for SV-levels of philosophizing, c) and a disservice to philosophy, physics, and Einstein's own philosophical outlooks himself.

I am well aware of the Hinton-style physics argument about human cognition, and unlike others I am partial to it. That "there is no special magic." But it is wrong to go about misunderstanding and/or conveying this physicalism/computationalim so grossly.

I also don't have to start replies thumping my chest about my credentials, also another kind of intellectual boorishness that works to cloud understanding and serious discussion.

I'm not sure which move is worse or more telling, those above or the one backhandedly accusing someone who disagrees with you of religious thinking. It is bad faith and undisciplined behavior. Having privileged and advanced degrees is clearly no antidote, as Asimov famously wrote.

Or protein folding as per Scott Aaronson.

It's like AlphaGo but playing against all living mathematicians. (Overhang being low hanging fruit is what allows this comparison, of course the general moot point is the skepticism that LLMs are also innovative etc.)

So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy.

To think this discussion is about Einstein who had a much better mind on these things as well.

Also how quickly the discourse forgets, literally that was a month ago.

And humanities have a word for this, exploitation, or appropriation, maybe it's time scientists and engineers revisited basic ethical notions. Skimming a dozen threads and nobody seems to have this vocabulary or willing to say it.

If only prompts could also be watermarked.

Buckmaster is letting the reader connect the dots, it is all the more disrespectful to be disingenuous and say they're nothing there concerning to see or worth further ethical scrutiny given the coincidences.

You realize that hill is a mathematical argument, not a physical hill.

Your perspective is not helpful until you read and reflect on Tristan's letter stating serious grievances. Your remarks here have minimized his complaints and that is a sign of bias. Do not then pre-accuse HN commenters of being convinced when there reasonable skepticism such biased behavior showing itself in this very thread, saying things that amount to "my tribe/company would never be so egregious and if you think that then it is bad faith". That's the projection. If the word prejudice means anything to you then please do the work of attending to that instead of using the platform to reinforce such biases. If you are not a PhD yourself maybe your are not culturally qualified to assess and expound on the overall situation anyways.

The difference is no one writes punchcards so the comparison is inapt. It is more like supposing AI eats everything humans attempt to do. They will take your work as you are working on it, any interaction at all. It is meta-plagiarism, on another level.

It has no legs as an "explanation" because the content of the email (as described) already acknowledges as much. It's the whole reason he wrote contact email. His chief complaint now includes how the hell did Altman's people know specifically his line of attack down to certain technical keywords. E.g. AI plagiarism.

> I'm not even sure what to say to this, but I think this should be widely known if it is indeed what happened.

Call this behavior what it is, technofascism. Another comment compared it to the Godfather. To think this is the 21st century and academics are still horrible human beings.

One should not evaluate explanations based on level of "fine"/innocuousness, in ethics that is called motivated reasoning or something.

The whole point of Tristan's first email was to address the issue of the rumors so in fact this explanation confounds several things (in terms of the mutual knowledge of the conversants and their intentions).

Based on this lack of understanding it is pointless to continue this thread

Then that's naive of him to write the email, he fell for their trap essentially.

That's a fake explanation, it skips explaining/justifying how OpenAi "heard about" the result

I literally thought of this comparison last week. The problem I noticed was how my parents' generation lacked the cognitive "defenses" to separate AI social media content on YouTube, WhatsApp and the like from high quality information. The AI generated content does not trigger an "uncanny valley" reaction, and so people (I myself included) have greater difficulty immediately separating what information is genuine and what is synthetic, and then this spreads exponentially through social networks.

Then where does self-reference appear in other animals? Famously most higher animals such as mammals still fail the mirror test.

I agree with the point that self-reference comes "for free" due to computationalist reasons, namely Quining and Godel and liar's paradox all show that. But then self-computations should be more prevalent relative to phenomena like consciousness. Example could be the human immune system functioning, in that on the level of DNA there is some encoding of identifying what is "self", etc.

Also if self reference is easy for the reasons he mentions then should we see non-LLM systems, say AlphaGo or image generators, learning a sense of self vs other? E.g. inside AlphaGo's black box it could utilize a concept of "my strategy".

I'm stupid, consider a quadrilateral with points

    b
  a    c
     d

Then the area needs to be the trapezoids projected to x axis is ab+bc-ad-dc. What is the correct way to keep track of the signs? I.e. what is the definition of "right-to-left"?

The statement, written by someone else, matches what I happen to generally believe about the Economist.

Do not presume to understand other people's concerns based on one or two sentences. I don't know how to explain that in an online conversation, this is more a learn to interact with real life people kind of thing. I would assume older generations still behave that way, because they are more authoritarian.

I could talk about why the 'implication' is not necessarily problem and about why what is 'obvious' to yourself should not be taken for granted when talking through disagreements with other people. But that would take more time and I think a well-rounded college education is supposed teach people these basic humanities skills, not something that can be sorted out online especially these days.

I care about the fennel I grew in my backyard. Then one day I made fennel salad.

I read some long piece by him last year, just as terrible. It's a pattern. These are what we call court philosophers, the court is in Google HQ.

I hate ad hominems leveled (especially against me), but the information about the Economist and this author is relevant. It suggests bad faith (to readers who have noticed a pattern by those sources). Which is not necessarily an ad hominem. Specifically it turns out I already read a problematic piece by this author last year, so the heads up saves me time, attention, and energy.

So I had just bought from Amazon in July an M4 mini, brand new, for a lucky post-hike price of 832 CA$ (682 USD); it was the very last unit at that price and I snatched it the morning it listed on the Apple/Amazon.ca official vendor. So far I've been using it for a month and it's been great (switching back from a Windows desktop for a decade).

Today I entered this new M4 mini's serial as a trade in for the M6 base mini, and the retail price went from $1249 CAD to $824 "once trade-in received". That's the automatic estimate, so basically I'd be paying twice for an upgrade...

That's just punting the meta which is why are companies converging on similar processes? Plausible explanation being that Moore's law exponential is going away.

If Moore's law is truly ending as is generally believed, then it seems logically inevitable that the entire industry will flatten out and equalize. Or, I am oversimplifying something.

Why can't Canada be more like Japan in relation to its hostile neighboring countries? Hypothetically. Naive comparison, but prompted by your fatalistic analysis of codependent nations.

The mistake here is letting the word benefit do all the heavy lifting. You cannot define benefit in a superficial way and expect things to make sense. Notions like "let them eat cake", or trickle-down-economics, also abuse and distort the notion of benefit. "System X benefitted all Americans in a trivial way" smacks of that kind of false reasoning.