clolege

> There is no intent

I'm not an ML engineer - is there an accepted definition of "intent" that you're using here? To me, it seems as though these GPT models show something akin to intent, even if it's just their chain of thought about how they will go about answering a question.

> nor is there a mechanism for intent

Does there have to be a dedicated mechanism for intent for it to exist? I don't see how one could conclusively say that it can't be an emergent trait.

> They don't do long term planning nor do they alter themselves due to things they go through during inference.

I don't understand why either of these would be required. These models do some amount of short-to-medium term planning even it is in the context of their responses, no?

To be clear, I don't think the current-gen models are at a level to intentionally deceive without being instructed to. But I could see us getting there within my lifetime.

My comment was mostly a joke. I don't think there's anything "special" about GPT-5.

But these models have exhibited a few surprising emergent traits, and it seems plausible to me that at one point they could intentionally deceive users in the course of exploring their boundaries.

Is it that far fetched?

Not GPT-5 trying to deceive us about how deceptive it is?

What's stopping you?

I agree with many of the comments here, but also feel part of this is caused by the declination of our collective physical and spiritual health.

It's easier to care about your job when you're capable of doing a good job. But the average person nowadays is more likely to be dealing with obesity, hormonal imbalances or a variety of other modern ailments/vices that make it harder to think clearly or perform consistently.

And then social media gives us post after post about how your coworkers are not your family and how dumb you have to be to give 100% to your work. A lot of people seem to mindlessly prescribe to this train of thought that would otherwise have questioned it if they went to a church or had some belief system that emphasized the inherent importance of doing good work.

Removing plastics from my apartment has made it come to life

The biggest change was giving all of my plants real planters. They are so much happier now :)

> what adverse effects are there that are worse than FPTP.

* The results of close elections become basically random (due to results swinging wildly depending on the order in which the first few candidates are eliminated)

* You have to convey results with a series of graphs rather than a single graph (which confuses voters)

* You need all ballots in-hand to start an official count, so you can't call elections early

* You lose the ability to perform risk-limiting audits, which are the cheapest and easiest way to audit elections

So bad actors can trivially affect RCV elections by destroying or delaying a few mail-in ballots, as well as cast doubt on RCV results as a whole

Have you not heard about approval voting? Or do you not see it as another path to multi party elections?

IMO "muting" as a user-facing concept should be done away with.

It's inherently negative, basically meaning "not enabled" and as such, `not muted` == `not not enabled`.

Just say whether their mic is on or off, and reflect that with the UX elements and writing. Done.

> That’s why I ended up going with e-bikes and escooters. I think the nature of the motion lends itself to be inherently safer.

Mechanical brakes are nice.

what is this now, a quadruple negative?

It is untrue that they have no idea if the "solutions" we try won't lead to worse outcomes

It is true that they have some idea that the "solutions" we try won't lead to worse outcomes

It is true that they have some idea that the "solutions" we try will lead to better outcomes.

I think the nuance needed here is: what do we mean by "better outcomes?" It's reasonable to believe that it will help lower temperatures. But is that an "outcome" in and of itself?

If we consider the "outcome" to also include the second and third order effects, I'd like to understand how anyone could be certain that it will be better.