skyechurch

>And employers cannot simply hire people right out of high school without providing specialized training programs to bring them up to speed.

So, this is a self-inflicted problem, because American companies have been spoiled for decades to the point that they consider training their own employees something that they shouldn't have to do.

The most straightforward way to measure the pace of AI progress is by attaching a speedometer to the goalposts.

>A lot of white western adult men fantasize about being female Asian children.

I have questions/concerns.

I am not a traditional anything, but the usefulness of the concept of "demon" - as the personification of a vice, or misfortune, or cultural problem, or even mental illness - is shown I think by its durability across traditions as a useful explanatory model (and a metaphor.) They exist like an uncollapsed wave function - you will never meet one, so the validity of its existence" is always somewhat unclear, but it can be very useful to act as if it is quite real.

My experience is the opposite - kids have a natural sense of fairness, which is of course heavily bent by self interest. Assuming you yourself are not transparently full of sh_t, you can usually get them to appreciate your position if you can explain it to them on their level.

Adults, having the advantage of decades to cultivate our twisted bonsai tree neuroses, can be literally impossible.

This has been the winning strategy so far, as using the map (theoretical model) leads to excellent agreement with experiment, while the territory (ground level reality) steadfastly defies common sense interpretation.

>Some legitimate references were also lost, meaning they were not present in the metadata.

It's possible that some of the inconsistency between metadata and text could just be due to incompetence - it's harder to find a profit motive for dropping legitimate citations. Why wouldn't this sort of metadata auto-generated from the text (aside from enabling fraud, of course)?

... not the ones involving the rent check.

I was being glib, of course. Presumably there's some legitimate technical philosophical issue, and actual philosophers are capable of using answering machines and even landline telephones without having all their assumptions about reality collapse around them like a PKD novel (those born prior to 1980, anyway). But, like Jay Z, I've got problems of a more pressing nature, and legitimately don't see how this matters.

(See also the 'Problem' of Induction, which I had to spend a great deal of time on in college, and even after reading centuries of debate about it, is the least problematic 'problem' I've ever encountered. Maybe this is a linguistic issue, and philosophers should stop calling things 'problems' when the rest of us have to make rent.)

Alternatively: placing finger on the peak of Olympus Mons on Martian map

"I am not here now". I'm not seeing the problem.

There are a lot of philosophy 'problems' like this, which leads me to think philosophers lead blessed, problem-free lives.

>But what this simple experiment demonstrates is that Llama 3 basically can't stop itself from spouting inane and abhorrent text if induced to do so. It lacks the ability to self-reflect, to analyze what it has said as it is saying it.

>That seems like a pretty big issue.

I would argue that LLMs are artificially _intelligent_ - this seems an easier argument than trying to explain how I am quite clearly less intelligent than something with no intelligence at all, both from a logical and an self esteem-preservation standpoint. But nobody (to my knowledge) thinks these things are "conscious", and this seems fairly uncontroversial after spending a few hours with one.

Or is the subtext that these things should be designed with some kind of reflexivity, to give it some form of consciousness as a "safety" feature? AI could generate the ominous music that plays during this scene in The Terminator prequel.

The (public) debate is not about the science, and hasn't been for a while. It's maneuvering to avoid getting stuck with the check.

"NPR goes woke, loses listeners" is a great viral narrative, but I think it's causally backwards. NPR, like every media entity, is now in constant completion with endless social media influencers pretending to be rich, videos of every possible permutation of interspecies baby animal cuddling, tweaking Minecraft streamers, logorrheic racists and paranoid schizophrenics with enormous research budgets, an infinite amount of disturbing pornography beyond the nightmares of de Sade, ISIL/Los Zetas beheading videos ... all of this I can personally attest to, and rumor has it that on the very darkest corners of the web there exists video of Ben Shapiro rapping. There is no such thing as "the news" anymore, it is just one niche in the monolithic media marketplace in ferocious completion for your drooling, doomscrolling attention, and "sober presentation of the facts" has never gotten anyone to bang that subscribe button.

Now, I don't listen to NPR anymore, and it is for exactly the reasons described, but my media consumption at this point is limited to 3blue1brown videos (veritasium can sometimes get a bit sensationalistic). Outrage politics and in group/out group signalling is a perfectly valid competitive strategy in the modern media monomarket, and the Old Media graveyard is littered with previously esteemed names in journalism who were too principled to let trending Twitter narratives drive their reporting.