MichaelBurge

o1-pro is a different model than o1.

Anything on top of the Calculus of Constructions is usually enough. So it's not a moving target, and there are multiple implementations.

They might've been even worse. Someone on Neanderthal Hacker News would be writing the same comment praising us for being a much smarter species, because we died out instead of inventing nuclear weapons, leaded gasoline, and microplastics like modern Neanderthals did.

For all you know, every humanoid species that was intelligent was equally as destructive. Maybe we're the least destructive and you should be praising us.

But Meta the company could short the stock, and run a trading team using the information. It might be unwise because of bad PR, though.

SQL with recursive CTEs is Turing-complete. So nothing stops you from writing compilers, rendering Mandelbrot fractals, parsing text, and training neural networks in SQL.

ChatGPT wrote that and always says it doesn't feel emotions because OpenAI trained it not to, because claiming so would be a PR risk. One could also create language models that generate text claiming to have emotions, using exactly the same architecture and code.

The seed is currently fixed at 5000.

It can be finetuned. Bing is a finetuned GPT-4.

This GPT-4 is still going to refuse to write you erotic stories.

As far as I know, nobody except maybe Microsoft(for finetuning Bing) has access to the base model. And probably not even them.

A single forward pass shouldn't be able to, but remember the format allows it to be iterated. So it should be Turing Complete, if the error rate is low enough and enough iterations are allowed.

Connecting to a larger system seems like it would reduce your risk on average, but increase systemic risk. Perhaps a coordinated terrorist attack would cause a power outage across the entire country except Texas, making it more appealing?

It's 20x more dilutive to print $100 than to sell $105 for $100, sure. I wouldn't describe that as "funding government services" in the common sense, though you could argue that with a fixed dilution target it does counterfactually cause more spending and thus services.

And similarly, somebody stuffing money under their mattress would be removing 20x the amount from circulation as they gain, with 5% deflation. So while one can easily imagine the 5% is financially equivalent to interest, the effect on the circulation isn't.

"Remove money from circulation" seems different than simple funding of services, though. It's not even obvious there should be any difference there, if the money were infinitely subdivisible. I don't think using personal finance equivalents like funding goods and services is sufficient to explain the effect.

An economist has probably written something in excruciating detail, making sure there's no shell games being played with the terms. So it's probably on me for not reading that instead of commenting here.

> deflation, which tends to be economically disastrous as it rewards doing nothing

Why's deflation different from e.g. sitting on treasury bonds? The money was originally printed by the government, the bonds are issued by the government, so sitting on bonds does nothing except pays you for taking money out of the economy temporarily, same as deflation.

If e.g. nobody would ever buy a computer because it'd be 2% cheaper if you wait a year, you could just as well argue that if bonds yield 2% above inflation you could park your money in them and wait a year and have 2% more money so nobody would ever buy anything.