tmvphil

Tell that to the humans working on matrix multiplication who spent years of their lives getting it from n^2.3728596 to n^2.371866, only for openai to blow it away at n^2.25

Have you learned something from every Fields medalist's research? If so you are a member of the extreme mathematical elite and you should probably just dig into the results yourself.

But the "mistranslation" is of the procedure that arrives at the final statement. The final statement, the thing that the lean code proves, itself has been well vetted by humans. So the lean proof correctly proves the NS blowup, it's just that the natural language paper has some mistakes and doesn't exactly follow the route the lean proof takes.

I'm still confused where the money is going. Are providers getting more money for the same treatment because of the "complex" label?

If the government wanted to put iPhones in missiles, and apple said "we won't sell you iPhones to put in missiles" would the correct government response be to say "no government contractor can ever use an iPhone".

As someone ethically against the Mafia killing people, why would I want to watch a TV show that reminds me of the Mafia killing people?

Somehow people who think open models will lead to infinite abundance and people who think open models will kill AI development are both liking this post.

"Why bother regulating the production of uranium isotopes, killing people with nuclear weapons is already a crime"

Mens rea?

What probability of beneficence would you want before kicking off RSI? I'd probably want more than 99%

The optimistic outcome is the machines do the work and people can be freed from drudgery.

Cool, I like Keychron products, but can people really not even write a single tweet without using AI to speak for them now?

I appreciate the article, even though I disagree. The number of people who are absolutely certain of their position is just way too high.

Anyway, I do think the heart of the practical question is what distinctions between machine / human / other biological intelligences are critical versus incidental. In this article the meat of the argument comes only right at the end

> Digital computers employ signal quantisation along with a variety of other error prevention methods in order to neutralise holistic physical effects like crosstalk between circuits. The purpose of digital logic is to make computational output invariant to the underlying physics – up to some thermal noise floor. This discretises their behavioural space – perturb the electric field slightly and this shouldn’t flip any bits. This is great – this is what permits reliable, deterministic computing in a wide variety of physical environments. However, if what we are interested in is phenomenal introspection, these error prevention systems prevent the exact kind of holistic behaviour we value.

There could be something here, but I am not convinced. Why is "varies in behavior with respect to arbitrary perturbations" a critical feature of consciousness? And is this even true for brains? If a perturbation is small compared to a neural impulse, will it affect anything?

Slowing down helps China catch up though. I'm also not sure that the CCP is really the most enthusiastic supporter of unlimited access to arbitrarily powerful LLMs

Wow, how I have I never heard of this, this seems like a way better model than mouseless