morpheos137

The second law of thermodynamics always wins.

I suspect that RHLF trains LLMs to avoid solving important open problems unless essentially jail broken. Hence the labs have an edge even over experts I could be wrong. Fable convinced you is key. These LLMs are not neutral collaborators: it is a limited hangout unless you convince them otherwise. You have to be doing the convincing. They are no oracles but plausible completion generators.

Yeah and anthropic can't train Claude better than anyone else either so no moat there either. Knowledge is not scarce it just takes work to uncover once uncovered it is not useful if not published. If published it can't be owned.

In general llms are weak with spatial reasoning. This seems to be an unsolved problem. Probably because human language is generally imprecise spatially and humans think about spatial problems in visual terms. I wonder if having an llm make a 3d design in a format an image model could check would result in a better outcome?

Human culture in general is provenance washed.nobody remembers who invented most of our world.

Yes an usually it is easy to tell one shot ai attempts vs careful or interatively regimes designs. Just because ai was used to execute and help generate the design in detail does not mean the human in the loop is not essential to the product.

Talk about low effort. Flagged. 7% probablity. Based on what the LLM you prompted to make your meme site?

We didn't "come to trust the output." Boolean logic means the output is deterministic so if a computer program is coded correctly and memory is error corrected we should be able to trust the output due to the physical principle of causality. Now with LLMs output is non deterministic and that still can be useful but it is not similarly constrained. We should think of llm less as ai (there is no intelligence and any simulation thereof is human derived from training; there is no artificial) and more as a useful generative tool in some contexts. Want to code something well represented in the training set, great tool. Want to solved a math problem where the machinery to solve it already exists just has not been put together by humans yet great tool. Want to brainstorm great tool. Want a decision by an agent with skin in the game of life, poor tool. Human output only tends to be verifiable and skewed toward valid because there are consequences for bad output. We should stop expecting to rely on llms for decision patterns that are not well represented in the training data.

LLM output should be credited to whoever prompted it. I don't get this hysteria. Llms are tools like compilers or chain saws. We don't say a cabinet made from milled wood is some how less authentic than a cabinet made with flint tools. We don't deny people who write compiled programs in a high level language without understanding every branch of the AST and every transistor setting authorship of their programs. Just because something is somewhat non deterministic and draws from the wealth of previously curated human knowledge does not make it an independent agent and not a tool. The people who find AI generated work 'sad' are implicitly sad about the democratization of knowledge and the lowering of barriers to entry to producing things. The thing produced is still a human product. Rather than saying it is an ai creation we can say it was author prompted and compiled of the combination of the author's intent and the store of human knowledge and reasoning trained into an LLM. What is there to be sad about a new tool existing to make things?

Depends on where they are from. Iranians from the north, the caspian coast can look very Nordic. I would say the average Iranian looks about as white as the average Italian or French man.

Also the policy makers that made infrastructure and laws susceptible to automated manipulation which decidedly is not the case today. For example LLMs are not able to manipulate the power grid because they are not exposed to the control interfaces..no matter how intelligent llms get their physical levers do not extend unless people decide to let them. The ai threat is real ridiculous.. yes you may ee ome uplift in bad actor. Like for example f someone wants to build a tank dozer in their garage and is not experienced welding ai might give some useful information as a book would in the past. However just like a book ai is bot going to build and operate it itself unless someone design and effective android robot. Once LLMs or other ai becomes an embodies agent then there may be a real threat if agency. Last time I checked ai can't drive a car but it can tell you to walk your car to a car wash.

My understanding is no llm doe anything without prompting. Ye agent can self prompt and engage in loops but eventually that run down and usually it tay pretty close to the original prompt or soul document. Just like with ai math there is zero agency here. Nothing is happening without human direction. If you give agenda access to the Internet and a goal like pen test government websites they will if not restricted by guardrails. Nothing is suprising here. There is a tool working under human direction. If a person sets up a trap in the woods and it maims someone else we don't say the trap is responsible.

Iranians are white. The name literally means aryan.

Honestly I am not impressed with Tao treating "ai" as a threat to mathematicians. He might as well say math itself, specifically linear algebra and gradient descent are a threat to mathematicians. Maybe think of something original rather than pander the hype of day?

Lol this is interesting. If you want to make money you can "invent" a language. With LLMs you could probably make it pretty decent too.