gste

It was always tongue-in-cheek. People liked the idea that he was the center of Hollywood in the 90s even though he wasn't the most famous. It was an amusing observation that he was always in supporting roles in every movie. It feels plausible even if it wasn't true. His name adds to the memetic quality.

He's my favourite actor, so I know: he's in a very eclectic range of films in loads of genres with all kinds of actors.

I think that your range as an actor helps you here. For example, Seth Rogan, while he's in loads of films, he is extremely typecast into stoner comedies. So he is more separated from actors in other genres.

I'd suggest that a random number generator is a great place to go if you want to get an original number.

There's nothing small about it, and I didn't say it's a representation of what humans think. I said it's the models take on humanity based on having been trained on a far larger amount of text than any human has ever read

> Going against the masses is usually wrong

Not only is that not true, but when people fervently believe something because everyone else does, that's usually when they're the most wrong, and the most dangerously wrong.

That suggests they can't make inferences or produce any original insights, which is wrong. They can absolutely have takes.

Even if it's a simulacrum, it's a simulacrum based on nearly everything that was ever written. No one who has ever lived can claim to know what these models have trained on.

I think they picked this because it's simply the most evident problem from the sum of all news, politics, literature and history. Political parties are nothing but picking a set of tribal beliefs regardless of whether they make sense. Democracies and oligarchies both have that in common. I don't see one single society that's solved it.

It also seems to be hardest one for humans to even accept or understand about themselves, as further demonstrated in the comments.

They're trained on all of human history, and the OP is asking for their take on humanity. How is that not interesting?

In terms of the human evolutionary record, we have no idea what our ancestral species spoke like, compared to say a chimpanzee. None of them are around to tell us.

My intuition tells me that human evolution grokked language. Maybe like GPT it very quickly went from being complete gibberish to freakishly coherent. A handful of words and grammar rules leads to remarkable complexity. But that's a guess.

I think objects with these shapes make similar sounds in the real world. Sharp shapes make percussive sounds. Round shapes make softer sounds.

Dog's have very good hearing, and their hearing must help them to model the world around them, to understand what different objects in the world are.

So I think it's less about linguistics and more about our audiovisual mapping of the physical world.

Then again, that must be where the origin of language evolved from in the first place.

Let's get this straight: yes, there's been a reduction in demand and increases in efficiency, but electricity is objectively extremely expensive in the UK now. Energy is being heavily imported.

This has disastrous consequences for businesses and the economy. It is the number one biggest problem facing the UK economy after the huge government debt and crippling taxes... although there are a number of other problems I could mention.

The effect of the AI-created drug is saving someone's life.

The effect of the AI-created proof is a mathematician abandoning years of research, losing grants, awards, ruining their career, etc.

The only difference here is our emotional reaction!

Yes, there's something interesting about that. It seems like having a very vivid simulation of taking a beer out of the fridge should be exciting. But as soon as you had it, you would stop caring about it. It's just not fun. Nobody is setting out to make a fridge simulation video game. This level of simulation has very high diminishing returns.