d4rkn0d3z

Put this together using AI. Questions, comments, feedback, and hurled invective welcome.

We need pedagogy to displace ignorance and fear.

Soon, very soon, there will be no way to discern the output of AI from that of a human, just as there is no way to determine whether I added two numbers by hand on paper manually, or I pushed the "+" on my calculator, given only their sum. Would you refuse to read an article if someone used a calculator to obtain results? What about numerical integrations? Would you refuse to read a book because a printing press made it? Perhaps books should have labels that say "WARNING this book was printed by a machine".

What if over the next few decades, science is creatively destroyed; no more science remains that isn't in some way produced using AI. I'm quite critical in using these tools but I'm not a Luddite.

I thought the word "artifact" gave a clue, so much for subtlety. Is there a reflexivity to avoiding AI?

Isn't that in the text above? Seems clear enough, no? I mean it wasn't like I asked how the day was going, there was significant prompting.

I had an interaction with chatGPT that I thought was fun and interesting for three reasons:

1) There could be something novel about this, even if it's just the way it all hangs together.

2) If not, then it could be mundane but consistent output which is encouraging, with respect to previous interactions.

3) It could be wrong but then it is quite convincingly so, I have not yet checked the details.

Do you agree? Tell me what you think?

Geometry is fundamental, period.

It might be better to think about what a horse is to a human, mostly a horse is an energy slave. The history of humanity is a story about how many energy slaves are available to the average human.

In times past, the only people on earth who had their standard of living raised to a level that allowed them to cast there gaze upon the stars were the Kings and there courts, vassals, and noblemen. As time passed we have learned to make technologies that provide enough energy slaves to the common man that everyone lives a life that a king would have envied in times past.

So the question arises as to whether AI or the pursuit of AGI provides more or less energy slaves to the common man?

A better anology would be a virus. In some sense LLMs, and all other very sophisticated technologies, lean on our resources to replicate themselves. With LLMs you actually do have a projection of intelligemce in the language domain. Even though it is rather corpse-like, as though you shot intelligence in the face and shoved its body in the direction of language, just so you could draw a chaulk outline around it.

Despite all that, one can adopt the view that an LLM is a form of silicon based life akin to a virus and we are its environmental hosts exerting selective pressure and supplying much needed energy. Whether that life is intelligent or not is another issue which is probably related to whether an LLM can tell that a cat cannot be, at the same time and in the same respect, not a cat. The paths through the meaning manifold contructed by an LLM are not geodesic, they are not reversible, while in human reason the correct path is lossless. An LLM literally "thinks", up is a little bit down, and vice versa, by design.

An LLM creates a high fidelity statistical probabistic model of human language. The hope is to capture the input/output of various hierarchical formal and semiformal systems of logic that transit from human to human, which we know as "Intelligence".

Unfortunately, its corpus is bound to contain noise/nonsense that follows no formal reasoning system but contributes to the ill advised idea that an AI should sound like a human to be considered intelligent. Therefore it is not a bag of words but a bag of probabilities perhaps. This is important because the fundamental problem is that an LLM is not able, by design, to correctly model the most fundamental precept of human reason, namely the law of non-contradiction. An LLM must, I repeat must assign nonvanishing probability to both sides of a contradiction, and what's worse is the winning side loses, since long chains of reason are modelled with probability the longer the chain, the less likely an LLM is to follow it. Moreover, whenever there is actual debate on an issue such that the corpus is ambiguous the LLM becomes chaotic, necessarily, on that issue.

I literally just had an AI prove the forgoing with some rigor, and in the very next prompt, I asked it to check my logical reasoning for consistency and it claimed it was able to do so (->|<-).

A bad thing with some positive side effects is not a good thing. Wildfire is bad, too frequent wildfires will turn forest into savannah. I didn't see where this part of the analogy was discussed.

Again stopping the execution of the handler based on an ID is not idempotency, but rather a corrective measure due to the fact that the handler is not idempotent. Idempotency is a property that says the handler can run as many times as I like, as diametrically opposed to the notion that it can run only once.