wavewrangler
Joined 3 years ago
Karma
81
Submissions
59
Member since
Nov 18
Recent submissions
Comment · 12 days ago
Comment · 15 days ago
I mean, someone has to say it, but Anthropic is the one who has an anus as a mascot. More specifically, Claude. It even winks at you, and clinches, too. I'm sorry that I have to be the one to report this to anyone reading this, I truly am. As the saying goes, don't kill the messenger.
Comment · 22 days ago
Excellent, thank you! I'm going to give this a real go. Meet me back here in 100 years in case I have some questions
Comment · 22 days ago
I read this as Getting Old - Macromedia Director Games to run on modern hardware
Comment · 23 days ago
I quite liked the effects...I found that they didn't actually impede my reading because it only covers a small, moving portion of the text at any given time. Also, I think this was written for a more general audience, including kids. This isn't presented as a journal submission so I think the added flare is fine, personally
Comment · 23 days ago
In my experience, when a disruptive tech comes along that displaces a certain way of existing, all of the former examples of this happening have resulted in people adapting. That's what must happen. And if you think LLM's are lessening the value of previously valuable work, then it is time that you increased your own output to once again be high and above that which LLM's are replacing or to what you perceive as having lost value. You can do that, that is totally within you, but you have to find it for yourself. Or you can just continue talking smack and contributing to nothing. But then your output is going the opposite direction of what you say LLM's are taking away to begin with. These are conflicted times we live in, but they really don't have to be.
For the record, I think this project was an excellent presentation, I loved the interactive elements snd the meteorite (or is that a meteorwrong?) to come across the page. This is about as good of a use of LLM's as I have seen. I didn't see anything about it in the article, but does anyone know what future plans are for this particular project, or is that a wrap? I didn't see I the Where This Stands section anything about future search topics. This really feels like a time where finding the question is every bit as important as finding an answer to that question.
Comment · 1 month ago
Geoffrey Hinton thinks AI is conscious. I know he's extremely accomplished and all, but as it pertains to AI as it exists now we're miles apart (not to say that he's not brilliant, but by difference of opinion). I also don't want to rehash the whole what-is-consciousness philosophical debate, and actually it's a separate question anyway, something doesn't have to be conscious to be dangerous. So I'll stick to the danger bit.
Do you use AI much? Not a trick question. What is your usage like? Reason I ask is recall OpenAI hyping GPT-2 with the same language as they are these new models. Doom and gloom. It sells. It gets attention. But use these systems enough and you start to become very familiar with their capabilities, and they are just so limited, and that's not even talking about how they lose the thread on long tasks. I understand that agency expands that a little, but not by much, really. When you use these systems a lot, it tends to be easier to see through the hype.
The real threat is, and will be for some time I think, people. Guard rails are not for AI. Guard rails are for people. All of this talk we are seeing in this space, this security chip being no exception, is treating a symptom, not a cause. People are what we should be focusing on, how, I have no idea, I couldn't even begin to guess how, but I can at least see that the actual issue is that the first thing some people want to do with it is cause harm and havoc. There is our sign. And we are trying to moderate the capabilities of the tool that can do harm in bad hands at a granular level when that means also moderating the same thing that can do good in that same tool. We aren't trying to moderate the hands that are handling the tool. And we need to be doing more of that. Any time we misapply constraints and focus on the shadow of the thing, and not the object casting the shadow, we are always going to be one step behind, whether it's AI or anything else. So I don't attribute the dangers of AI to AI itself, I attribute it to people.
Additionally, on AI building AI and AI just wiping us out; AI can do that for itself for rule-based things, up to god level I reckon. Things like Go, etc. And to be fair, AI research is partly like that, code either runs or it doesn't, so I get why that paper is worried. But where it needs data to actually succeed, it is limited by the amount of data that exists. And we, us, people, are who creates that data. AI and humans have more of a symbiotic relationship than people seem to realize. There are several papers that go into detail on this:
Models trained on their own output degrade: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07566-y They need fresh real data every generation or they go downhill: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01850 Reusing the same data loses value after a few passes: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16264 And the stock of human-written text is finite: https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.04325
So it's not that I think it's 0%. I just think the explosion story underrates how much it still needs us, and that the damage in the near term is going to come from people, not the AI deciding on its own.
Comment · 1 month ago
Did they try just properly sandboxing them first? Or are they still learning how to configure a firewall over there?
The problem isn't even the AI, the problem is the people in charge of the AI. This is a fabricated crisis
Comment · 1 month ago
"I don't want the details"
Comment · 1 month ago
Never be sure about what, exactly?
Comment · 1 month ago
Ahh. Okay...So, this is kind of like the 2D entities trying to make sense of their 3D counterparts, and the 3D counterparts getting the sensation of someone watching them, but its the 2D beings discussing the existence of the 3D entities instead of vice versa? I know this is quite a basic comparison but it helps me grasp it a bit better. Also, is there any particular reason that it's 3D and 2D? That is, is there any other dimension number that could accommodate the correspondence? Or does the math say it's only 3D to 2D and vice versa where this works? And do we know why or why not if so? Thanks
Comment · 1 month ago
Lets imagine that we are the are the flat landers for a second. We're doing something, the laundry, and we feel an eerie feeling come over us as if we're being watched. No one else in the room, so you shrug it off. Come to find out, our 3D counterparts were actually observing us, unbeknownst to us (aside from that eerie feeling we got). Stay with me! So, while we are on the persons screen or a piece of paper in front of them (this of course assumes 2D existence is possible, just for the example) and they are viewing us, is this at all similar to what this article is talking about? In this scenario, can we label one Ads and one CFT? Another question kind of, but maybe not separate to that, asks if Ads/CFT is a mathematical description of how things project into seemingly completely separate things depending on your perspective? But they're indeed the same. An example of what I mean, so in our 2D existence we notice a pulsing circle, and then in our 3D existence we realize that pulsing circle is actually someone playing with a ball on a string and the pulsing is the ball getting closer to us in more dimensions than can be expressed properly in the 2D view. That's kind of what I mean...so is Ads/CFT description of the same kind of idea as my... admittedly weak example? Lastly, I would like to say that Quanta is fantastic. I don't understand a lot of what is written in their pages sometimes but that's not due to the writing by any stretch. But it makes me think, which is why I still read it anyway! If I'm not mistaken this is the 2nd time in as many days it was featured on the front page, and rightfully so, I think. Anywho, thanks for reading/taking time to respond if you do.
Comment · 1 month ago
I don’t know, seems like it’s smaller to me if they’re going to limit themselves like that? I guess today is semantics day, lol
Comment · 1 month ago
Pacing the frontier. They might as well have said they are stifling innovation. That depends on your interpretation, of course…but interpretation depends on their intent, which I feel is disingenuous.
How you act throughout your life, is how your son will act in his life. And it might seem like at times he doesn’t care or is above it, but he will ultimately do how Dad did it. This isn’t taught so much as it is imprinted. for me at least, that means: what will your son teach you? You will see just how much it matters.
Maybe an analogy is that it’s like LLM training…the better the training data, the better model. You are the training data. Remember that! And congratulations.