Bx6667

It’s a fact that the guidelines are bendy. It’s a fact that comments that break guidelines but have a liberal sentiment get flagged and danged much, much less often than the same comments with conservative sentiment. That is a fact and I invite everyone who reads this censored and flagged comment to see for themselves.

Watt hours are the most widely used unit for energy in science and engineering ...

This comment blatantly breaks the guidelines and yet nobody flags it. But when I make a benign comment that has a pro-conservative sentiment, it’s instantly flagged and responded to by Dan.

Offline classes aren’t worth the cost of full tuition...

These results are literally unexpected. The consensus of all the experts in 2010 was that none of this could possibly happen in the next ten years. The way these results were arrived at are unintuitive which probably has to do with why they were so utterly unexpected. The broad effort to mine “algorithm space,” which includes many different ML agents and other things, is producing results that were not expected. This is just a fact. There is no way around this. Just accept it and move on.

It’s obvious that the surprises will keep coming. We slowly close in on the algorithms that bring the silicon to its full potential. The real question is what is at the bottom? We keep digging and with more compute and more data eventually we will find that the stuff near the bottom is important and dangerous.

The fact that gtp3 has x flaw has absolutely no logical intersection with this. It’s basically unrelated.

So under your logic we won’t have any idea that we are close to having agi until we have a machine that can reason... which is agi. You are missing the big picture

And precisely none of what you just said addresses my point.

Were you alive in 2010?

You don’t know the distance! And you are conflating distances! Distance between agi behavior and gtp3 behavior has nothing to do with the distance in time between the invention of gtp3 and agi. That’s a deceptive intuition and fuzzy thinking... again my point is that the “behavior distance” between AIM chat bots and gtp3 would, under your scrutiny, lead to a prediction of a much larger “temporal distance” than 10 years. Nit-picking about particular things that this particular model can’t do is completely missing the big picture.

You don’t understand how it works. You can’t explain how the model works. Go ahead and correct me if I’m wrong.

I am totally confused by people not being impressed with gtp3. If you asked 100 people in 2015 tech industry if these results would be possible in 2020, 95 would say no, not a chance in hell. Nobody saw this coming. And yet nobody cares because it isn’t full blown AGI. That’s not the point. The point is that we are getting unintuitive and unexpected results. And further, the point is that the substrate from which AGI could spring may already exist. We are digging deeper and deeper into “algorithm space” and we keep hitting stuff that we thought was impossible and it’s going to keep happening and it’s going to lead very quickly to things that are too important and dangerous to dismiss. People who say AGI is a hundred years away also said GO was 50 years away and they certainly didn’t predict anything even close to what we are seeing now so why is everyone believing them?

By voting through feel-good proposals that are ultimately misinformed and destructive. It’s happening anyway through our indirect democracy but at a slower rate.