adleyjulian

They aren't guessing heads or tails, they give odds for each event. It's more like eyeballing a thousand coins to guess how fair they are, and then flipping each one just once.

Some are weighted to be 99% heads, others are 10% heads etc.

You could have 1,000,000 people guess random percentages for each coin, but suppose 10 of the coins are weighted 100% heads. To guess within 25% of the true value for all 10 of those coins would be roughly 1 in a million.

So a lucky guy guesses within 25% for all 10, he'd have another 990 coins he's being judged on.

It is precisely in unregulated markets I would want to use a ride shape app else they'd try to scam you on the price. Multiple times I've had drivers attempt to triple the agreed to price, or I'd have to haggle them down before the ride etc. This was over 20 years ago and Uber and the like did away with all that.

I suspect the anxiety of being unable to forget things has an inherent selection bias. You will only stress over the things you can't forget, the things you have forgotten you won't stress over...

Generally claims of eidetic memories are overstated, doubly for older claims, but Nigel Richards memorized a French dictionary in 9 weeks, over 6k words a day, x2 including the alphagram.

I consider myself to have a decent memory, but that is 200x what I'd think myself capable of, assuming I want to retain it all at the end of the 9 weeks.

FYI in Chinese he/she/it all use the same pronoun "ta" when spoken.

The other issue is that lidar costs came down 99% in the last decade and self-driving took longer than he had said.

At $200, you might as well add lidar. At $50,000 vision only made more sense.

A trained marksman may be able to hit a clay pigeon with a 22, but it's easier with a shotgun.

So saying a human can do something doesn't mean it's the easiest way.

The point of the article is that people are historically bad at predicting when exponential curves plateau, even if they're correct that there will be a plateau.

This does *not* imply the inevitability of AGI. It does not imply AGI is necessarily bad.

It does mean that "the capabilities of AI will eventually plateau" offers no meaningful predictive power or relevance to the overall AI discussion.

1. It's not inevitable. 2. Those that see AI as an existential risk don't generally think it's a guarantee, but if it's say a 5% chance then that's worth addressing/mitigating. 3. That's not what this article was even about.

Your response is myopic. Do you think large health insurers gave a shit about DoD unofficial contracting black lists or even if the DoD would even know who they're contracting with?

The impact of this is far more than just DoD procurement, which is already enormous.

Completely false. It's the first time a US company has been designated a supply chain risk. Now the likes of Boeing can't use them. Health companies with Medicare/Tricare contracts don't know and will hold off until it's fully litigated.

This is not the government saying they're going with a different vendor, it's the government saying everyone has to choose to either have federal contracts or Claude, they can't have both.

The line of reasoning is more like this: if you make and sell safe-cracking tools then it would not be unreasonable for the government to regulate it so only registered locksmiths could buy it. You don't want people profiting from the support of criminal acts.

The government could similarly argue that if a company provides communication as a service, they should be able to provide access to the government given they have a warrant.

If you explicitly create a service to circumvent this then you're trying to profit from and aid those with criminal intent. Silkroad/drug sales and child sexual content are more common, but terrorism would also be on the list.

I disagree with this logic, but those are the well-known, often cited concerns.

There is a trade-off in personal privacy versus police ability to investigate and enforce laws.

It has been solved. Get rid of all the windmills. Easy.

Reading what you said literally, you're making a strong statement that an AI could never be conscious and further that consciousness depends on free will and that free will is incompatible with determinism and that all of these statements are obviously self-evident.

At no point did I say LLMs have human intelligence nor that they model human intelligence. I also didn't say that they are the correct path towards it, though the truth is we don't know.

The point is that one could similarly be dismissive of human brains, saying they're prediction machines built on basic blocks of neuro chemistry and such a view would be asinine.

The majority of spend is in the last few years of life. A man dying of a stroke during the night at age 50 is much cheaper to the system than the same man living to 90 having fought cancer for 10 years.

I'm not advocating against health nor preventive care, however they don't decrease costs nearly as much as you'd expect.

> LLMs get over-analyzed. They’re predictive text models trained to match patterns in their data, statistical algorithms, not brains, not systems with “psychology” in any human sense.

Per the predictive processing theory of mind, human brains are similarly predictive machines. "Psychology" is an emergent property.

I think it's overly dismissive to point to the fundamentals being simple, i.e. that it's a token prediction algorithm, when it's clear to everyone that it's the unexpected emergent properties of LLMs that everyone is interested in.