BoiledCabbage

By writing nothing at all to disk IIRC. Was an interesting read.

> However, I have also heard that Russia is a lot closer to collapse than they let on.

I mean it seems like they were until someone just decided to give them huge infusion of money, remove all sanctions passed against them and throw them a huge lifeline. Oh and can't forget "remove sanctions for oligarchs".

What's also cool is if you take that n-gram frequency model, and scale it up from just 2 characters ('d' and 'f') to a full alphabet. And increase n towards a very large number then you can in theory do a good job of predicting sentences. Unfortunately you'll have a lot of your long sequences will only have 1 or 2 data points as n gets large, and you'll need an absurd amount of memory to store it all

So if instead you replace it with a "compressed" model that doesn't actually store all the seen n-gram options, but instead predicts them, then you've more or less just re-invented LLMs.

It took them 10 less than months to turn this news into the current unraveling disaster.

> The primary issue is Social Security.

No it's not. It's about 15% of the 2 trillion dollar defecit. Whoever told you that mislead you.

Yet another incompatible definition - here first principles thinking is define as "how do reach a solution?". If that were true, then it wouldn't be any different from "problem solving".

I think I'll stop commenting in this thread as it seems like no two people in this thread are using compatible meanings of "first principles" thinking. Forget about equivalent meanings of it.

"First order" thinking from my knowledge is an entirely different concept.

This is a nice anecdote about Hibernate, but in the world does it have to do with "first principles" thinking?

That's the type of comment people make when they don't want to understand what the others side's actual views are, so instead they tell themselves a simple story they can believe rather than engage with the actual reason.

Both sides do it, but that's a prime example of one of the popular ones from one side.

Sounds very similar to the "interpreter" or "virtual machine" pattern (can't recall the exact name).

But essentially a component receives a list of high level instructions / description of what the user wants done, and it translates that into descriptions of "lower level" commands that should be performed. And those commands then get executed separately.

Anythinf statefule / io is contained in the commands and can be tested easily with external dependencies. And the complex logic is all pure in decided what to do and how to do it based on what was asked for.

That's pretty crazy - if you get too hungry you turn back into a baby.

Hard to even imagine what that would mean in humans.

And everyone remember when months back Anthropic said: You can use our tools, but don't use them for automated attacks - you have to keep a human in the loop because LLMs (including theirs) aren't reliable enough yet for solely making those decisions.

Remember that? And they were widely mocked by the right for it.

Yeah, well this is exactly what they foresaw, and they didnt want a hallucination to trigger a major power war. And somehow so many people were against them for it (including here on HN).

Yet again it seems like there are so many people who can't envision event the most obvious consequences of decisions until they actually see it happen. Why is this so common?

Same thing with the AI Safety and Hugging Face incident. Now all of a sudden many people are connecting "hmm if models get just a bit more capable, a poorly directed or poorly aligned model might do serious damage to critical systems - even as a side effect of some goal, let alone if done intentionally.

> Weird question to ask, that is pretty obvious.

For something the the prior statement it is never a weird question to ask of there actually evidence of this or just it seems like it should be true so we believe it.

There are tons of things that seem like they would obviously be true, but it turns out they aren't.

Regardless of my opinion on the greater subject, I find these arguments to be fairly weak.

Paraphrasing: "Just because and AI may exist that is capable of acting independenly of us and dangerously out strategizing us for resources doesn't mean it will. AIs up until now only follow human instructions."

So your safe bet is that of this AI is created that not one of the billions of people on the world will ask it to do that? That seems unlikely.

"Yes and AI may have an IQ of 1500 but that doesn't mean it's qualitative better than us like we are compared to monkeys. We have better tool use and society."

Yes that's true, but generally increasing IQ also seems to come with qualatative advantages, I don't see why that pattern would stop above human IQs.