magusdei

No, it would take approximately 3 minutes where you either write a paragraph in the desired style yourself or paste one from the Internet and then ask it to continue in that style. Even if you decided to go the more onerous fine-tuning route, it would require 1-2mb of text, cost very little, and you'd be done in a few hours. It's easy.

"Ego sophos, ergo et qui mihi similiter cogitant sophi sunt"?

>AI anime character generator game startups that YC seems to enjoy investing in

Wait, YC invests in this space? If it isn't any trouble, could you point me to a few?

According to myth, Tamamo-no-Mae would attach herself to emperors and drive them mad, causing them to commit massacres. Hmm...

Your feelings are understandable, but I'd say you will be more effective in actually helping people if you manage to develop compassion even towards people who seem hate-worthy. I wish you continued success in your practice.

Then, would you say your actions are in line with the compassionate awareness of bodhicitta?

"Monks, do not wage wordy warfare, saying: 'You don't understand this Dhamma and discipline, I understand this Dhamma and discipline'; 'How could you understand it? You have fallen into wrong practices: I have the right practice'; 'You have said afterwards what you should have said first, and you have said first what you should have said afterwards'; 'What I say is consistent, what you say isn't'; 'What you have thought out for so long is entirely reversed'; 'Your statement is refuted'; 'You are talking rubbish!'; 'You are in the wrong'; 'Get out of that if you can!'

"Why should you not do this? Such talk, monks, is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or to Nibbana. When you have discussions, monks, you should discuss Suffering, the Arising of Suffering, its Cessation, and the Path that leads to its Cessation. Why is that? Because such talk is related to the goal... it conduces to disenchantment... to Nibbana. This is the task you must accomplish."

-- Viggahika Sutta, SN 56.9

Sorry that my answer comes so late, but I'll put this here for posterity. I will only address the latter part. My point was that a brain is an N x N -matrix in the same sense as an ANN. An ANN is no more an N x N -matrix "in reality" than a biological brain; in reality it is some collection of analog electric potentials and configurations of matter which can sometimes be represented as a digital N x N -matrix for the convenience of the programmer. Thus the situation is exactly identical to a biological brain, which is also not "in reality" an N x N -matrix but can be represented as one. If we had sufficiently advanced (nano-)technology, we could manipulate human brains through their abstract representation as a matrix just as we can ANNs. Any distinction is purely pragmatic.

In any case I was not saying that being representable as an N x N -matrix is sufficient for consciousness (which I do not believe), simply that it is clearly compatible with consciousness. I agree that a self-aware ANN would probably require a body (possibly simulated) and some notion of agency.

It depends on what you'd consider fundamental. It's true that most of our advances since the mid-80s have been about improving the robustness, data- and compute-efficiency of the training process through optimized architectures and learning algorithms, and in principle in the limit of infinite data and compute you could have taken a model from 1986 and scaled it up to do everything that our current models do. In that sense there have been no "fundamental" advances.

On the other hand, in the limit of infinite size and complexity most mathematical functions can be represented by hash maps, yet to say that there have been no fundamental advances in programming since the invention of hash maps in the fifties would seem like an odd claim to make.

There's a good reason for this -- the version of GPT-3 used for these tests was fine-tuned on CYOA adventures, where this kind of sudden death is very common.

Your commitment to empiricism is admirable. What kind of evidence would you find sufficient?

If you know what a Markov chain is then you must also know that modern language models are nothing like Markov chains. Just as an example, a Markov chain can't do causal reasoning or correctly solve unseen programming puzzles, the way GPT-3 can.

As for self-awareness, your brain is an N x N -matrix in the same sense as an ANN, so surely it must be possible for one to be self-aware? Not claiming that GPT-3 is, of course.

Ending up "net ahead" does not necessarily mean maximizing the fraction of successful projects. I don't think pg is saying that implausible-sounding projects usually turn out good. He is saying that when they turn out good, they have outsized impact, precisely because they initially sounded implausible and therefore produce lots of new information if true.