throwwwaway69

> The commenter's throwaway account never agreed it was an extreme.

I did, two hours ago, 6 minutes after your comment

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35201830

This is like saying I play at a 2900 level if you just ignore all the times I lose.

This isn't really an apt metaphor. Firstly because higher level blindfolded players, when trained to play with a blindfold, also virtually never make mistakes. Secondly because a computer has permanent concrete state management (compared to humans) and can, without error, keep a perfect representation of a chess if it chooses to do so.

I'm in product management (though a former engineer). You're right that knowing the tools and how to apply them is definitely meaningful. But I also have to demonstrate that I know more than just the use of tools. And unless I want to build out 20 different projects, I feel like writing about the application rather than just doing the implementation is the best path forward with my limited time

I feel like Youtube vidoes are a massively annoying format for digesting information. It's so slow compared to text and it's full of fillers and introductions and flowery language. I'm surprised this is so upvoted on HN, especially because in my brief scanning the video format doesn't add anything

I'm not really sure what to say here. Both the parent commenter and the author of the article had issues with ChatGPT supplying illegal moves. Both methods resulted in this. It sort of doesn't matter how we're trying to establish that it's a 1400 level player, there's no defined correct way to do this. Regardless of method we've disproven it's a 1400 level player due to these illegal moves.

fine, fair, "never" was too much. posting link to this comment to not repeat same discussion twice

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35201037

What if I'm blogging to demonstrate knowledge and thought around professional topics with the intent to help demonstrate to future employers I know what I'm talking about?

He literally used the same prompt as the article.

Claim: "ChatGPT's Chess Elo is 1400"

Reality: ChatGPT gives illegal moves (this happened to article author too), something a 1400 ranked player would never do

Result: ChatGPT's rank is not 1400.

We don't have any concrete reason to support that an AGI would harm humans.

We do have concrete reasons to support that AGI will save millions of lives with advances in medicine and healthcare and a ton of other stuff.

Until we have literally any evidence to support harmful AGI motivations, I think we should work towards #2

I'm a software guy learning the AI field and tools and I literally made a glossary in my notes that I add to any time I run into a new initialism or word or concept. It's pretty long.

Is there an implication that his thesis wasn't actually produced in the year it was claimed to have been made, and in fact made much later? It sort of reads that way but I don't see any explicit mention of this in the paper or comments

They did in the OP link. To say now in comments "It's not contradictory" is not owning up to it being bad communication

Already a member :)

If I was a billionaire this is the sort of thing I'd fund. Like the EFF but specifically for open source developers and projects.

How is it different/worse than what Facebook just did?

> YC is sitting on top so much money and profits

This is true of every big tech company doing layoffs. They can all easily afford to keep everyone. They choose not because capitalism has no room for humanity.

Being able to come up with solutions to assigned tasks that don't have a foundation in something that's often referenced and can be memorized is basically the most valuable use case for AI.

Simple example: I want to tell my robot to go get my groceries that includes frozen foods, pick up my dry cleaning before the store closes, and drive my dog to her grooming salon but only if it's not raining and the car is charged. The same sort of logic is needed to accomplish all this without my frozen food spoiling and wasting a salon visit and making sure I have my suit for an interview tomorrow.

Trying to claim you definitively know why it didn't solve the parent's puzzle is virtually impossible. There are way too many factors and nothing here is obvious. Your claims just reinforce that you don't really know what you're talking about.

>closing it burn user trust

99.9% of Google users are completely unaware of their reputation around closing down products. Closing Google reader a decade ago is a cause that nerds like us on HN care about, but virtually no one else. And the same nerds like us also care enough about our online presence to not use Google products for a hundred other reasons anyway

Regulation should exist to limit or eliminate the risk of Americans having to pay to cover for bad executive decision making. The whole point of laws and regulations are to protect people and their interests. It is in the public interest to have a stable banking system, and it's also in the public interest to not have to pay premiums for deposit insurance (which we all currently do)

> The assumption that a general intelligence, whether merely human-scale or superhuman, would be reliably subservient and exploitable is not an insignificant assumption.

Ok, but that's Sam's assumption. I'm just having a discussion based on his assumptions. Also Sam is extremely aware of this risk and it's a talking point endlessly circled around in the space.

> This is magical thinking. Real physical science and experiments will always be necessary until we have the computational power to simulate the physical body completely, something which would require exponentially more computational power than an AGI is expected to need.

I agree a brute force effort like you're likely referencing would take tremendously more power than an AGI, but the premise is basically that AGIs would be able to make both the hardware and the simulation itself hyper efficient. There are likely ways to run a simulation that give you everything you need without simulating the entirety of a physical body for a given test. If we're stress testing a type of concrete, we don't have to build an entire building to test only the concrete. We know how the concrete interacts with the building.

> Plus, fundamentally in nature there are many "chaotic" processes that are impossible to accurately simulate more than a few seconds ahead due to the amount of computation required growing exponentially with simulation duration.

I'm not sure what you're referencing here. I don't anticipate a future where an AGI can predict what every single cell in your body will do after taking a pill.

This is true of a ton of businesses, though. If it's not OpenAI then it's ad providers, or payment processors, or affiliate programs, or the banking industry. These are all huge blockers to a lot of businesses (porn sites, non-monetizable content, cannabis companies, etc).

#2 is sort of silly. There's endless use cases for a superhuman intelligence to make billions of dollars. Just the application into medicine and drug development would create trillions of dollars of value and completely change the world. Illness as we know it could potentially disappear, treatment could be nearly free, we'd never need to run real world clinical trials ever again, etc.

> when does the government benefit us?

literally all the time, the entire country is shaped around the benefit of corporate interests and capitalism

Been a while since I've seen the trickle down economics argument

The free markets will resolve this I'm sure