soloist11

How does WebSage verify semantic fidelity and avoid hallucinatory confabulations?

All the listed loss functions induce equivalent topologies. Functions which converge in absolute value on a compact space converge also with mean squared error to the same function. The loss function is actually irrelevant and all it does is change the rate of convergence.

The fact is that they do and it doesn't matter how many abstractions we put on top of the underlying physical reality of digital computation, it will always be digital unless someone figures out how to make analog computation as scalable as digital computation.

It's basic thermodynamics. More energy in the atmospheric system means more violent and extreme weather events. The energy has to go somewhere and it goes into faster winds and bigger storms. In other news: In 2022, U.S. total petroleum consumption averaged about 20.28 million barrels per day (b/d) [1].

1: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...

The computer works with binary sequences. LLMs do not change this fact.

This can be said about every AI system/software and not just Figma. First the data is gathered for "self-supervised" training. Then, some product is built on top of it to gather users. Once the users show up their data is in turn used to fine tune the system in order to continue gathering data and subscriptions from the users.

The logic of AI companies is very simple and the entire value proposition is in how efficiently the company can convert user data/feedback into features that users will pay for so that the AI company can continue paying their cloud bills.

Folks, there is no formula for detecting anxiety and emotions from pictures alone. Anxiety levels are correlated with nutrition and various biometric markers like cortisol. The AI, no matter how advanced can not detect cortisol levels from pictures of faces (this is before we even get to how stress and anxiety are defined and labeled).

It's again unclear to me what you're arguing about. I have no horses in this race and no problems with either Biden or Trump.

I don't really understand what you're arguing about.

You can use a configuration management tool but you can also just have a bundled archive that is deployed and extracted with SSH. Here's one example: https://community.chef.io/tools/chef-habitat

The standard solution is to use digital keys and signatures. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here, just use the standard cryptographic constructions to verify that the requests are from trusted sources, e.g. https://medium.com/@georgwiese/hash-based-digital-signatures...

Now we know that US presidents are above the law. I always assumed that was the case so this is just confirmation for everyone else who had any doubts.

Have you guys applied this work internally to optimize Meta's codebase?

I see what you're saying so what OpenAI will do next is create an army of GPT critics and then run them all in parallel to take some kind of quorum vote on correctness. I guess it should work in theory if the error rate is small enough and adding more critics actually reduces the error rate. My guess is that in practice they'll converge to the population average rate of error and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

In the critical limit every GPT critic chain is essentially a spellchecker.

Every leap of civilization was built off the back of a disposable workforce. - Niander Wallace

Most of my ideas are not original but where can I learn more about this recursive reward modeling problem?

How do they know it's better? The rate of mistakes is the same for both GPTs so now they have 2 sources of errors. If the error rate was lower for one then they could always apply it and reduce the error rate of the other. They're just shuffling the deck chairs and hoping the boat with a hole goes a slightly longer distance before disappearing completely underwater.

Are you sure it's not called recursion?

How do they know the critic did not make a mistake? Do they have a critic for the critic?

How do they verify correctness?

Sci-Hub link: https://sci-hub.se/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5392...

The problem is the people who are hellbent on mechanizing everything with computers without stopping to think about the ultimate endpoint of their enterprise.

You'll have to discuss these matters with computationalists. I'm not an expert in synthetic biology but from what I've seen their initial stock always consists of existing biological matter and viral recombinators which are often produced in vats full of pre-existing living organisms like e. coli.

There are lots of things we don't know and that's why there is no good reason to attribute intentionality to computers and algorithms. That's been my argument the entire time. Unless there is a good argument and proof of intentionality in digital circuits it doesn't make sense to attribute to them properties possessed by living organisms.

The people who think they will achieve super human intelligence with computers and software are free to pursue their objective but I am certain it is a futile effort because the ontology and metaphysics which justifies the destruction of the biosphere in order to build more computers is extremely confused about the ultimate meaning of life, in fact, such questions/statements are not even possible to express in a computational ontology and metaphysics. But I'm not a computationalist so someone else can correct my misunderstanding by providing a computational proof of the counter-argument.

> Formal theories and physical manufacturability are two different things

Yes, two different things are two different things. I did not equate them but made the claim that a sequence of operations to construct a chip factory can be specified formally/symbolically and passed on to others who are proficient in interpreting the symbols and executing the instructions for constructing the object corresponding to the symbols. There is no such formal theory for ecology and the biosphere. There is no sequence of operations specified formally/symbolically for reconstructing the biosphere and emergent phenomenon like living organisms.

> However, “can be viewed as” is not the same thing as “is”

Ultimate reality is fundamentally unknowable but what I said about computers and digital circuits is correct. We have a formal theory of computers and that is why we can construct them in factories. There is no such theory for people or the biosphere which is why when someone argues for intentionality or some other attribute possessed by both people and computers I discount whatever they are saying unless they can formally specify how some formal statement in a logical syntax (program) corresponds to the same attribute in people and animals.

This confusion between formal theories and informal concepts like intentionality is why I am generally wary of anyone who claims computers can think and possess intelligence. The ultimate endpoint of this line of reasoning is complete annihilation of the biosphere and its replacement with factories producing nothing but computers and power plants for shuttling electrons. The people who believe computers are a net positive might not think this way but by equating computers with people they are ultimately devaluing the irreducible complexity of what it means to be a living animal (person) in an ecology with irreducible properties and attributes.

I'm obviously not going to convince anyone who believes computers and algorithms can think and possess intelligence but it is clear to me that by elevating digital computers above biology and ecology they are devaluing their own humanity and justifying actions which will ultimately end in disaster.

> If your argument succeeds in proving that computer programs can't have intentionality, an essentially similar line of argument can be used to prove that human brains can't have intentionality either.

I don't see why that's true. There is no formal theory for biology, the complexity exceeds our capacity for modeling it with formal language but that's not true for computers. The formal theory of computation is why it is possible to have a sequence of operations for making the parts of a computer. It wouldn't be possible to build computers if that was not the case because there would be no way to build a chip fabrication plant without a formal theory. This is not the case for brains and biology in general. There is an irreducible complexity to life and the biosphere.

> That's not true. To give a trivial example, a set or sequence of numbers is composed of numbers but is not itself a number. 2 is a number, but {2,3,4} is not a number.

That's still a number because everything in a digital computer is a number or an operation on a number. Sets are often encoded by binary bit strings and boolean operations on bitstrings then have a corresponding denotation as union, intersection, product, exponential, powerset, and so on.

Even with a source of randomness the software for a computer has a formal syntax and this formal syntax must correspond to a logical formalism. Even if you include syntax for randomness it still corresponds to a proof because there are categorical semantics for stochastic systems, e.g. https://www.epatters.org/wiki/stats-ml/categorical-probabili....