@atmoio One might call it: artificial intelligence. Not sure why some insist that artificial intelligence isn’t artificial.
English
Deeper than tech
983 posts
Deeper than tech
@deeprthantech
We're swimming in tech, but the ocean is deeper
USA Katılım Kasım 2023
117 Takip Edilen63 Takipçiler
I’ve been trying to find good analogies for this.
The argument seems to be: “AI is intelligent because it does intelligent-like things, therefore it is cope to say it’s not intelligent.”
Some analogies:
- “The moon is really bright. Therefore it is capable of luminance.” Here of course we expose a manner of speaking. The moon reflects the sun’s light. The models reflect our own intelligence. The moon will never be a star.
- “A snail on the bed of a tow truck is really fast. Look, it’s moving from A to B at 60mph, it’s clearly fast.” But of course the snail is borrowing the truck’s velocity.
Notice how there is no controversy in calling the technology large language models because the term is perfectly apt: a map of language. This points to language as constructed by humans as the true source of magic, and LLMs being algorithms that can traverse this map at light speeds.
Before you think I’m being pedantic, understand that the nature of the words we use is precisely what’s at stake. That the moon *looks* bright is incontrovertible. Insisting however that the moon itself has any concept of inherent luminance is when you start to gaslight people into deranged realities that they will not stand for. Attempting to appropriate ageless conceptions like consciousness and intelligence to corporate technology by playing axiomatic word games is insanity.
Large language models do what they do and this is non-controversial. Personifying it with human-like attributes however is totally uncalled for, when it is easy enough for us to define new words that better capture the phenomenon.
I’ve been thinking long and hard about this and I think a good phrase for these technologies can be—hear me out:
“large language models”
nic carter@nic_carter
The “it’s not AGI because machine intelligence is jagged” is dumb cope. It’s obviously AGI. If you had a friend who had a 130 IQ, could write production code flawlessly, could write academic papers of a high research caliber, pass any exam in any field with flying colors, create a sophisticate LBO model, draw technical diagrams perfectly, compose poetry in any language, and could find solutions to significant unsolved mathematical problems, you would call that person a world historical genius. Certainly, no single human has ever had intelligence that “general” before. Now you think it’s “not AGI” because it sometimes slips up and makes mistakes - so does any human that you would consider “extraordinarily intelligent.” The professor might forget a colleagues name that he has known for a decade. He is still considered intelligent. The math genius might be a little autistic and shy, unable to maintain polite conversation. Still intelligent. You might stare at the fridge for 30 seconds unable to find the butter, despite 5 million years of evolution perfecting your visual intelligence. We give intelligent humans a pass when they have jagged intelligence. So why the double standard? The qualities people list as “necessary for AGI” are important traits to have, but no longer pertain to intelligence. People will say things like “true AGI requires agency, long term goal setting, embodiment, self-direct action”. But none of those things are intelligence. Those are “things that humans have that AI lacks”. Raw intelligence, AI has it in spades. That other stuff - important yet, but broader than and different from intelligence. The unwillingness of people to acknowledge that AGI obviously exists and has existed for a while is due to a kind of anthropic chauvinism - a psychological need to believe that humans are superior in every respect, that we possess soft skills that no machine could replicate. Yes humans are different from machines, but if we are limiting the discussion solely to general intelligence, AI has it already. That battle is over. If you want to reframe the discussion to matters of human dignity and personhood, fine, but that’s not an AGI question. That’s something else. Just take the loss on AGI already. It’s over.
English
@Devlinside123 @buckleycarlson No, you just made a bad argument.
English
@deeprthantech @buckleycarlson Yeah, I’ve heard that one…and I’m sure the child is glad he exists…
But since no one is being forced to have a baby in surrogacy or being forcibly sexually assaulted your snark falls apart…
Liberty is a bitch…
English
Dave Rubin is such a bitchy, child-buying* little sodomite. (With apologies for stating the obvious)
* Can anyone explain why this is safe, moral, tolerated, LEGAL? Is it? It was NOT in the America I grew up in. If THIS is not worthy of a "national conversation", what is? Beyond our humiliating lack of sovereignty…
@AnnikaJostSonn
English
@Devlinside123 @buckleycarlson In other news: child conceived in rape is glad he exists; so there’s no problem with rape.
English
@buckleycarlson So what’s the problem? Millions of children are born into sub-optimal homes…still far better to exist as the child of a single mom, drunk ass dad, or gasp, a gay couple than to not exist at all
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
No, the Bible does not call Christians to constant self-examination over whether they’re still Christians.
“Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Cor 13:5) was an exhortation to a church entertaining a false gospel (see 11:3-4) – it’s a call to reject false teaching and hold fast to the gospel.
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
"Christ is the substance and ground of the entire Scriptures."
~Zacharias Ursinus , The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, 3.
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
You're not crazy. An evil demon *could* be deceiving you about the nature of reality. You're simply questioning the foundations of knowledge. And honestly? That's brave
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
Law cannot sustain sufferers.
Introspection cannot create assurance.
Moral exhortation cannot heal the conscience.
Pietistic striving cannot produce peace.
Only Christ, given to sinners in the gospel, can do that.
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
For the minister, the constant temptation is to look for a ministry more visibly glorious than Christ crucified and risen as held forth in ordinary means.
Brothers, there is no greater glory. There is no greater ministry.
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
"The heavens are neither geocentric, nor even heliocentric, but Christocentric. It is the cross and the crucified and risen Jesus who has the whole world, and each of us, in his nail scarred hands." -Sam Schuldheisz
1517.org/articles/the-c…
English
@bryan_johnson @ThePrimeagen As the Bible says, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord”
English
I read Mere Christianity when I was a teenager. His argument lands within a religious/spiritual frame and then when I was out and about in the world, it seemed that status was basically pride but as a market mechanism. All humans, whether they like it or not, has to contend with status/pride in daily life for work, mate selection, social dynamics, etc. I'm unsure what to do with that virtue then. To want more or less or something else?
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
John Calvin, drawing on Augustine of Hippo, explains that good works are gifts of God’s grace, not the basis of our salvation or assurance. Even our best works are mixed with sin and cannot stand on their own before God. Yet God graciously “crowns” these works—not as earned merit, but as His own work in us—so that all confidence rests in Christ alone while the fruits of faith are publicly recognized at the final judgment.
paramountchurch.com/blog/post/crow…
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
Justification is an eschatological verdict already delivered in the Second Adam.
Any scheme that shifts the decisive judgment to the end — conditioned by our obedience — replaces gospel with probation.
That is not a nuance. It is a different covenant.
English
@IntCyberDigest Guy cracked under zero pressure. 50 hour week 😂 this guy French or something?
English
Oh my, if you're having a bad day you should look at this person's day. 💀
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
@thepanta82 @justalexoki Couldn’t have said it better lol
English
@justalexoki It gets randomly fixed and unfixed, and then you die.
Enjoy.
English
I don't get the "Flutter Web is a waste of the Flutter team's time" takes. If all you want is single codebase mobile apps, you should be using React Native. Literally the only nice thing about Flutter is that it includes web. If you don't want that part, you really should never use Flutter to begin with.
English
Deeper than tech retweetledi
Bro you’re not gonna believe what’s free
Polymarket@Polymarket
JUST IN: New app lets users pay $1.99 per minute to talk to an AI-generated Jesus.
English
Friends who use AI: I need some advice. Can I upload a folder of sermon outlines and transcripts into AI (Claude, ChatGPT, or Perplexity) and then ask AI to retain them so I can organize and search them topically? For example, if I am looking to preach a sermon on “the nature of the Church,” I want AI to suggest certain sermons I have preached. I can do that “manually,” but not as fast. How do I do that? The chat function? Or a Cowork function? Or all these AIs have “Computer” functions too. Thanks!
English