dclowd9901

Well we're not. Theory of mind is _understanding_ you're not.

How is it not true? Theres a world of difference between predicting the next word of a sentence in a summary and understanding the tenets of mathematics. You're mistaking general application of mathematical knowledge with memorization of mathematical outcomes.

Because they don't _understand_ things. If I teach an LLM that 3+5 is 8, it doesn't "get" that 4+5 is 9 (leave aside the details here, as I'm explaining for effect). It needs to be taught that as well, and so on. We understand exactly everything that goes into how LLMs generate answers.

The line of consciousness, as we understand it, is understanding. And as far as what actually constitutes consciousness, we're not even close to understanding. That doesn't mean that LLMs are conscious. It just means we're so far from the real answers to what makes us, it's inconceivable to think we could replicate it.

My favorite part of this article was this bit, and naturally so, since I love the author:

> Where did we come up with this caricature of AI’s obsessive rationality? “There’s an article I love by [the sci-fi author] Ted Chiang,” Mitchell said, “where he asks: What entity adheres monomaniacally to one single goal that they will pursue at all costs even if doing so uses up all the resources of the world? A big corporation. Their single goal is to increase value for shareholders, and in pursuing that, they can destroy the world. That’s what people are modeling their AI fantasies on.” As Chiang put it in the article in The New Yorker(opens a new tab), “Capitalism is the machine that will do whatever it takes to prevent us from turning it off.”

I didn't realize it til I read it here, but yes, my fear isn't really about the machine, it's about the machine that drives the machine. We already have a class of amoral beings that treat the world as an expendable thing and are willing to burn it down for profit. We should focus on getting rid of that problem first.

If you can't ban them, what else would you call it?

For people who don't support this kind of ban, I'd ask: What's the alternative? _Requiring_ that states house data centers?

This was the first thing that came to mind with me as well: the language of the reasoning for the layoffs. It's never a leadership failure is it?

In Arizona we grow alfalfa as well -- it's mind boggling to me that in places where water is so scarce we use so much of it on such a low value crop.

I get that it is neat but it's hardly the Hoover dam is it?

The "Creator" sets in particular I feel harken the most to the company's roots. They usually have a few different builds per set and include all sorts of unique pieces for making your own creations. They also usually have very fun designs.

I have the re-release secondhand unopened and I think I paid about that much, so even in a collector's market, not terrible at all. An expensive toy to be sure but a deeply satisfying experience if you like that kind of thing.

What software engineering benchmarks?

As the brother of a young, amazing man who we lost due to another genetic ailment (CF), whenever I see stories like this, it makes me so hopeful for families in the future never having to see a loved one deteriorate due to a bad roll of the dice.

Hats off to everyone out there putting in the hours to make the lived experience of these folks much better than they would have otherwise been. If only we had more of you in the world.

> I’m a sensible moderate on the killbot issue (we’ll probably get them eventually, and I doubt they’ll make things much worse compared to AI “only” having unfettered access to every Internet-enabled computer in the world)

Crikey, this isn't sensible, this is completely misanthropic and nihilistic. How can anyone be ok with a machine unilaterally deciding (outside of the courts or any other check mechanism) to murder someone?

I also take issue with the author's postulation that the Defense Production act could be used here. It's one thing to make sheet metal companies build plane parts, but requiring companies to be put themselves "in the loop" so to speak with regards to actual military strategy or defense puts those companies and their employees at unwilling and extraordinary risk. It's basically enlistment. Plus, it can only be used in extraordinary circumstances.

There's actually another possibility here: Anthropic really doesn't care about being in the loop, and are protesting as theater, but behind the scenes, hammering out a deal with the Pentagon, and they'll help under classified status, and none of us will be the wiser.

That's interesting -- I'll have to keep an eye out for it.

I really hate that the first example has become a de facto tell for LLMs, because it's a perfectly fine rhetorical device.

Is that not the "Emperor's New Clothes" form? That would be like version 0.0.1

If you broaden the definition of "stolen identity" to "someone trying to scam either you or someone else by using details on your identity" (which this story more or less is) I think a fair many of us can claim this experience.

> He gave me the standard line: 2-3 weeks if I hear from anyone.

> I never heard from anyone.

What is the FBI doing if they're not working on cases like this or domestic terrorism/mass shootings? We continue to have both classes of crimes in droves.

Im with you. I want to play Freespace 2 on earbuds.

As you described, because he keeps to himself, he comes off as a loose cannon, which feels to me like something you wouldn't want on a coherent spy team, but nonetheless is so fun to watch, which is the point, really.

Yeah, I mean he has a lot of really strong flaws that almost seem purposefully to put one off (which could be his whole angle, who knows), but between his drinking, terrible health, horrid treatment of his team (who, yes I know, he actually does care for), you're often not on his side, but more eager to see how what he's put in place will unfold.

Slow Horses is so equal-opportunity with how it hands out ineptitude. About the only character on the show who isn't inept is Lamb (Gary Oldman), but is such a wretched character, you could actually hardly find a moment to root for him. It's fantastic.

I think UI innovation requires truly novel interaction mediums. Likely, the only innovations left are predicting user behavior using AI, so essentially putting what you're looking for right in front of you before you even knew you wanted it. I haven't seen anyone do this well yet.

And what's your stake in how AI models are perceived?

I get it though. I'm the kind of person who's willing to learn slicing, architecting supports and all the other wonky shit that 3d printing begs of because it provides essentially priceless (read: nonexistent custom things) for me.

Someone who's already well steeped in a hobby as demanding as WH40k and who already has access to items they can purchase alternatively probably is not searching for something else they have to get their head around. And MSLA printing is not a chill hobby by any measure.

I've literally never had the thought of "how do I influence other people." Why is that considered a valuable skill? It just sounds like a nicer version of "manipulation".

I agree -- the career advancement bent of this article is the most off putting aspect.

I tend to see my code in these terms as well, it's not dear to me. But I'd never presume to tell someone how to feel over having their work stolen (and I'm using that term because that's how I'm sure Mr Grey felt).

"Larger issue" is overall technical direction and architecture, making decisions that don't paint you into a corner, establishing maintainability as a practice, designing work around an organization's structure and habit and so on.

But these are the things people learn through experience and exposure, and I still think AI can help by at least condensing the numerous books out there around technology leadership into some useful summaries.