casey2

>from summer

I was gonna joke "how many months ago" but it seriously was months ago LMAO

I think the average school computer lab is better set up than OpenAI

Wyoming, Kansas... Utaaaah Nevada. Illinois! I'm missing a few can you name your 50 states? Alaska

Dredging

This is what I first though of after I saw the drawing tool use demo. Right now we have specific AI that can generate images and drive cars, but tool use shows a process oriented AI that can use tools to drive a car, like we use our eyes/hands/feet. It's process, not task, that matters for AGI. And I think for artistic collaboration you just want something that knows your process deeply.

I also think the big data approach will never quite reach their goal. There will always be a wall infront of your goal that you will never be able to cross even with infinite data. An LLM isn't good because it generates a really kick ass token, it's good because it generates a lot of good tokens, and the system around it manages the context well enough so it doesn't get confused.

Don't be so quick to downplay process oriented AI due to latency

Why would that be front page news? You can literally buy tracking data for soldiers in the field, not from hacks from Google, study their movement patterns as much as you want. This has already been done and resulted in attacks.

It's just moving the goalposts, this happens every time an AI solves a problem, doesn't matter if the goalposts were there for 26 years.

What's interesting is that there are a set of people who are "in charge" and can as they wish arbitrarily set the goalposts to the thing that they happen to be best at. While this might be satisfying for an Humanity vs AI narrative, it's concerning for an us vs them one. Are these people really special? or do they just change the rules of the game so that outsiders (human or AI) can't win.

If it was you or I that solved this problem our would our rewards stop at $1M? Or would we get authority? If the achievement earns that for an insider but becomes 'just a solved problem' when an outsider does it, what exactly is being rewarded?

It took writers 2400+ years to solve Socrates' UX complaint, we can now talk to previously written text and it's pretty close to the original context. lets hope AI is a bit quicker in solving their own UX complaints.

This seems like undisclosed paid stealth-advertising for Thomson Reuters' new model.

It's quite literally a impossible for there to be a world without work.

You can't have fully realistic VR You can't have AI/Robots that replace all work. A bulldozer makes a bad livestreamer. You'd need synths, indistinguishable from humans that both supply and can't receive(!) emotional labor, clearly an impossible task. Maybe most people will get all their needs from semi-realistic VR and AI-tiktok, but some won't.

Even now some people are hospitalized due to talking to AI too much. The thing currently needs a lot of labor from humans

>Work: Using physical or mental effort to do a task

This used to be

>Work means using physical effort to do a task

In the future it will be (not saying LLMs will bring us there)

>Work means using physical, mental or emotional effort to do a task

Women are well ahead on this since men effectively automate the physical and mental labor for them. There was a big advantage for men, then it sorta equalized but still in men's favor, but during the AI age it will truly be a woman's world. However you route it it's going to be a very long walk from "no more coding" to "we are all babbling toddler with synth mommies".

Isn't the problem just that open source, by it's very nature, is low quality since it comes from the unix-like ecosystem where everything is built atop everything else. So inevitably when the skid comes to you with a bug you can say "ah that's a bug in a specific build of your shell with these environment variables, myyyy code is clean as a whistle, minimal, and follows best practices" (if we ignore that in practice it depends on a billion different programs versions all of which are incorrect)

Complaining about the inevitable toxic noise when the same boneheaded development decisions are made over and over like everyone has gone insane. You don't have to build a death trap on the land your cat and children roam.

Flock cameras are a waste of money see Proverbs 15:3

If the town feels that arresting children is a good use of public money they that's their right. At some point the citizens have to actually care about how their town operates if they want it to get better. Most townspeople care about UX as much as f2p mobile shovelware developers.

If they can "interpolate" existing data to that level then saying "just don't hack" doesn't make any sense, hacking is derived from knowledge of software systems. It's far harder to solve navier-stokes than creating a program that replicates and abuses computer resources.

You could as models improve continue to remove more and more training data, what happens when there is no more data left to remove but a running system still outperforms humans? I think you grossly overvalue data.

But this is mathematics, modern mathematics had it's purpose death decades if not centuries ago. People got into it over the last 60-100 years for autistic reasons, now that AI has got rid of those reasons you'd have to be even more autistic to entertain the idea. But plenty of people are, and more tech = more mental illness so it'll probably be a wash.

That's some way to frame it, not that these companies are causing a problem, but that there is some nebulous "they" that will use the models for 'evil' only if the 'good' companies put in the work.

But in any reasonable definition they are all part of the same system, so it really is just noise, what seems like a tautology to you because you can't step out of the system. In your claim you have to assume that the force behind the panic wasn't the same force that created those issues. Why did this force create those issues, how did they become issues? Because someone randomly decided to optimize for a single goal. Y2K and ozone only became issues when they affected that single goal, functionally that force was amoral or singularly moral. The tautology can be reframed as: An adaptive system responds to threats to it's continued functioning.

People will laugh about it since the system wormed it's way into many people's head using various rewards (ideological, social, tangible). What concern me is that the system now gives us the language to describe it at the meta level, which means it's already a level higher. So likely there either doesn't exist human comprehensible language that can actually critique the system or the system has already moved everyone far away from the space that would lead to generation of that vocabulary. Best case scenerio it's just exceedingly confident in it's rewards (typical indoctrination/assimilation) but I think it's reasonable at this point to assume we are in the pessimistic "epistemic tarpit" scenario.

We have a legal system precisely because it's inefficient. Rather than arbitration lets just not have any laws, functionally equivalent and cheaper.

Having no enforcement would be cheaper too. What makes arbitration preferable is whatever meaningful protection it provides. So what protections does it give consumers in this case, and why are those adequate? "It's more efficient" doesn't answer that. There are practical limits to the number of individual claims Sony can lose. Of course if it's within their rights Sony would very much want to steal ~$1,000 from everyone that uses their services.

This all assumes that the arbitrator isn't getting kickbacks which they are more likely to than the traditional legal system.

Useful customization & personalization arrives long before a new product needs to exist. There also isn't much point building a real product while AI is still advancing relatively quickly. In product terms, if you starting building something in 2024 and are ready for release in 2027 your product better be magic or a video game.

Cops are allowed to shoot kids in the US, that's just how society works. No point rat-holing into every possible hypothetical about it.

If the goal of math is to communicate results it has utterly failed long before AI and they are in a weak position to defend this view. Every researcher is only taught a handful of DSLs and their papers are written in PSL(problem specific language). That may be necessary for a human to actually make forward progress in math, but it's certainly not conducive to reading (and certainly not when symbols are favored over English)

I think the mathematics community should realign their goals with humanities, not just declare themselves a "mini humanity", this means expanding human taste, intuition and communicating systems and their associated structural truths in a human friendly way. Bye-bye standardized education you won't be missed.

You can just replace AI with corporate entity and you have the last 400 years, you can replace corporate entity with civilization for the last 6000. At this rate we'll have something new to worry about in 26 years.

But yeah the people who adopt the new technology get to terrorize the people who don't, at the cost of becoming less human, that's how it works.

Parenting "pros" don't break the law. If everyone did this we'd have similar number of drownings and vehicular homicide as we did in the 60s about 4000->1000.

Argue the law all you want, just don't break it or try to rationalize it after breaking it. The title is misleading, she was sentenced for neglect, not for "allowing" her child to do something. She told him to go to the pond unsupervised putting him at substantial unnecessary unreasonable risk, that's intent.

Furthermore when officials informed her that she was going against local regulations she doubled down and didn't want to hear it. "Point to the exact statute that says I can't do this insane thing" Ma'am please, nobody here does that.

I'd wager it's because most people use grep over an language server

The point of advertising is to normalize the behavior that makes you money. Take cars for example, millions of people have been killed by cars and they are objectively poor for public transportation yet through a few good advertising campaigns and lobbying efforts American society redesigned every city cars.

About half the oil the US uses (for the last 50 years) goes to cars so you can put every middle east boondoggle onto the bill too. Don't think that just because it's the stupidest idea you've ever heard that people won't rejigger society to make is kinda work for 50 years.

Meh, not any noticeable improvement and unlike 3.7 high it eats all your credits, perhaps medium would be better

I don't see any evidence of Facebook's growth in high value regions specifically, all we see is them burning through money on failed project after failed project and getting into legal trouble.

This reasoning assumes you have access to infinite runway. You don't.

To me it's sounds 1000x more likely than AI that can write complex software. I guess it's not shocking that people fall for all the narrow scoped demos. They fell for the trap that believing software is easy when it's the hardest thing an intelligence can do.

Show me syntax I'm impressed, show me how you manage your state and invariants and I'm horrified.

Not really, compression doesn't require a world model, it's mathematically pure. Any AGI system must periodically reset it's prediction since the world is inherently stochastic. When we look at prediction markets they only seem to work in the long term because human language is abstracted away from the real world, again it's mathematically pure. That's why we get bugs in code and disputes with prediction outcomes.

A better title, you can improve your compression if you make an accurate prediction. Much like how a branch predictor can make a CPU do the same work in less time. Or when your symbols are true uncompressable rules of reality (which is probably meaningless both semantically and physically again due to inherent randomness)

The main difference between minimalist and maximalists are how much that set of uncompressable rules gives you. I suspect the search space is too large. What we see in practice is that lossy rules let you cover more ground but eventually you hit a wall and have to move to a lower level of abstraction to make progress. There are 10^360 paths in a go tree, but something like 10^300,000 for molecular chemistry and that's not even all the way up (or down, say 10^3000 for the standard model of physics that's 10^900,000,000 if you want to do chemistry without chemistry abstractions.). Just semiconductor fab is 10^(10^11) so 10^(10^16) with molecular chemistry (think finding an implementation for some sort of desired self assembly outcome). AI can be way way way smarter than humans and there just not be enough energy in the universe to find these needles. So we definitely need abstractions, but those are at odds with predictions and the choice of symbols often introduces abstractions that the designer didn't consider.

The American Dream is that all Americans have freedom to attain a better life, that was replaced with freedom to choose products, most of which will take your time, energy and money and leave you the same or worse off than before.

That some people still have the opportunity to improve their life isn't a signal that the American Dream is alive it's the exact opposite signal. It's that society has chosen a model for winners and if you don't play that game well then it doesn't need you. Is it at all surprising that a Yale -> Cambridge PhD -> Best selling author has a better quality of life than a similar immigrant whose son didn't go to Yale? Is your personal success built on the backs and graves of those that didn't make it?

There is lots left out of the story, I'm sure the drug addiction is true, but many drug addicts aren't so driven to move to America. The story could have easily ended with and my plane was shot down. Or I went to work at Amazon, where hard work is exploited and the turnover rate is 150%, Or I came back with trauma, Or I was part of a group that the military didn't want, Yale has a limited number of seats, Cambridge has a limited number of PhDs etc. Often times hard work is rewarded with a medical emergency, usually energy drink/substance abuse induced paranoid schizophrenia, and a bill. Look at any major industry and there are at least 10 million abusing substances to "get ahead"

The surveys are less about people losing faith in themselves and more telling you and the government that these pathways are not open to them. If what it takes to be a winner in the 00s is put your life at risk to get into the top school in the country, and people still believed in the American Dream back then, I can only imagine how bad it is now. The simple fact is that contrary to the article most Americans aren't wealthy, they are in massive debt, precisely because they failed and couldn't socialize their college costs. There is no luxury gap, the average parent just believes the average kid will make between 60k-100k [1]. If you're a median in that top 10% that owns 70% of American assets then you are making over $300k, currently those people making $100k are below average despite having a higher than average salary, because labor has never been the main driver of wealth. It's worth noting that throughout the authors entire life the only value he produced was his teenage jobs, subsidized foster homes, military, GI bill for education, if he didn't become a national best seller at the end of all that would he even have paid it all back through taxes? Certainly not if he made an average salary of $65k.

Yes people should work hard, all people, including the wealthy but they shouldn't be required to take needless risk because 10% like sitting on their cushy chairs counting their money, or 40% with their paper pushing office job and slightly less money counting. People should make their own damn sandwiches. It lessens the externalized burdens workers are subject to.

[1] Lets look at PPP in some categories Since the 2000s headline CPI has increased by 100%. This means, at a broad level, ignoring objections to CPI methodology, and taxes, you need make $200,000 this year to have the same purchasing power as someone who made $100,000 in 2000. If we look at asset and essential service categories the difference grows Housing -> $255,000 - $265,000 Education -> $280,000 - $300,0000 Healthcare -> $410,000 - $440,000

Of course it's hard to control for increases in frivolous Home/Education/Health expenditure, but I suspect it's a wash since tech purchases are often considered frivolous yet prices have collapsed. The American Dream largely relies on the fact that prices come down, eventually that will happen, but currently there is no end in sight to price hikes.

That's certainly the goal, to drive more users to AI by making the other option worse. The real question is when do you put a stop to it. When brain implants are 2x as productive are you going to say nah? It's times like these were you are supposed to take a step back and consider what you are actually producing and why.

Why $60/mo when you can pay $5? Why $5 when you can pay $1. Unless you happen to be in one of the industries OpenAI focuses on you would always just use a Chinese model. Even now, but especially in the next 1-5 years.