I was very tempted to go ‘don’t think it is more than one nobel guy, which is not great because of nobel disease anyway. I could link to rationalwiki here but that has come under threat because the people whos content you enjoy Scott started a lawsuit against them’ but think that might be a bit culturewarry, and I also try not to react at the places we point towards. As that just leads to harassment like behaviour. Also Penrose is a Nobel prize winner who is against AGI stuff.
That is the one I was thinking of, the way the comments are phrased makes it seem like there are a lot of winners who are doomers. Guess Hinton is a one man brigade.
Yeah the financial illiteracy is quite high, on top of the rest. But dont worry AI nobel prize winners say it is possible!
(Are there multiple ai Nobel prize winners who are ai doomers?)
That gives me a ‘you broke reddit’ jackrobertsofficial is also empty for me (and empty if I use an incognito window, so I’m not blocked). I got the feeling that might be what was going on. Even if I had a hard time finding his old work, as the news articles he links on his own site were dead.
E: tried on my phone and it appears wtf, no wait. It is promoted, my addblockers just nuked it haha, my bad.
Seems it was deleted. But due to reddit being reddit I noticed it pointed towards the ‘Swat Man: Volume 1 Kindle Edition’ amazon link. (Which I have not reproduced here)
and that’s how we should view the eventual AGI-LLMs, like wittle Elons that don’t need sleep.
Wonder how many people stopped being AI-doomers after this. I use the same argument against ai-doom.
The amount of testing they would have needed to do just to get to that prompt. Wait, that gets added as a baseline constant cost to the energy cost of running the model. 3 x 12 x 2 x Y additional constant costs on top of that, assuming the prompt doesn’t need to be updated every time the model is updated! (I’m starting to reference my own comments here).
Claude NEVER repeats or translates song lyrics and politely refuses any request regarding reproduction, repetition, sharing, or translation of song lyrics.
New trick, everything online is a song lyric.
More of a notedump than a sneer. I have been saying every now and then that there was research and stuff showing that LLMs require exponentially more effort for linear improvements. This is post by Iris van Rooij (Professor of Computational Cognitive Science) mentions something like that (I said something different, but The intractability proof/Ingenia theorem might be useful to look into): https://bsky.app/profile/irisvanrooij.bsky.social/post/3lpe5uuvlhk2c
The ‘energy usage by a single chatgpt’ thing gets esp dubious when added to the ‘bunch of older models under a trenchcoat’ stuff. And that the plan is to check the output of a LLM by having a second LLM check it. Sure the individual 3.0 model might only by 3 whatevers, but a real query uses a dozen of them twice. (Being a bit vague with the numbers here as I have no access to any of those).
E: also not compatible with Altmans story that thanking chatgpt cost millions. Which brings up another issue, a single query is part of a conversation so now the 3 x 12 x 2 gets multiplied even more.
Ai is part of Idiocracy. The automatic layoffs machine. For example. And do not think we need more utopian movies like Idiocracy.
Too late im already simulating everybody in this thread in my mind.
Uber but for vitrue signalling (*).
(I joke, because other remarks I want to make will get me in trouble).
*: I know this term is very RW coded, but I don’t think it is that bad, esp when you mean it like ‘an empty gesture with a very low cost that does nothing except for signal that the person is virtuous.’ Not actually doing more than a very small minimum should be part of the definition imho. Stuff like selling stickers you are pro some minority group but only 0.05% of each sale goes to a cause actually helping that group.
Well it is a LLM, it is going to make up some strange claims when you ask it about why it was trained. We know LLM output cannot be trusted and it gives answers that are often not true but convenient for the people asking the questions. I’m a bit disappointed so many people who should know better now trust the output.
E: I’m sad that this was all on the guiding prompt level and not that they just dumped more white genocide related training data into the model causing it to collapse.
Yes, this just makes it worse. ‘People are thinking we are a bunch of clowns, and for the record maximum truthseeking that is a lie, we are amateurs and clowns. Anyway we are now going to post some technically true but not relevant to the incident information, and as you brought up the highly debated subject of white genocide in South Africa we are going to give all our white South African employees giftcards.’
Building a gilded capitalist megafortress within communist mortar range doesn’t seem the wisest thing to do. But sure buy another big statue clearly signalling ‘capitalists are horrible and shouldn’t be trusted with money’
Re the blocking of fake useragents, what people could try is see if there are things older useagents do (or do wrong) which these do not. I heard of some companies doing that. (Long ago I also heard of somebody using that to catch mmo bots in a specific game. There was a packet that if the server send it to a legit client, the client crashed, a bot did not). I’d assume the specifics are treated as secret just because you don’t want the scrapers to find out.
I’m GamerSexual, and that my dear Sir is no Gamer.
Yeah with PG it was ‘who are you saying this for, you cannot be this dense’ (Esp considering the shit he said about wokeness earlier this year).
Even more signs that sneering might soon be profitable, or at least exploitable. Look who is pivoting to sneer
Deleted earlier message, sorry I called Scott out for not doing things he had done. Even if the whole mods ‘restricting her messages now only after she went after Scott’ is quite iffy. (LW people write normally challenge failed “One upfront caveat. I am speaking about “Kat Woods” the public figure, not the person. If you read something here and think, “That’s not a true/nice statement about Kat Woods”, you should know that I would instead like you to think “That’s not a true/nice statement about the public persona Kat Woods, the real human with complex goals who I’m sure is actually really cool if I ever met her, appears to be cultivating.”” (The idea is good, this just reads like a bit of a sovcit style text and could have been replaced with ‘I mean this not as an attack on her personally, I’m just doubting the effectiveness of her spammy posting style’).
Also: ‘Mods mods mods, kat spill my jice help hel help help’