madjam

502 posts

madjam banner
madjam

madjam

@madjam1231

pronouns in bio

Katılım Nisan 2012
144 Takip Edilen8 Takipçiler
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@bitcloud @SethCronin Can you define “standing function”? I’m not entirely sure what you mean by it
English
0
0
1
33
Lachlan Phillips exo/acc 👾
Let's do a basic thought experiment. Let's slow down our LLM. One layer per minute. One layer per hour. Run one layer of an LLM. Just one. Write the numbers down and post them to Tokyo. Run the next layer. Write them down and post them to Milan. After 100 or so rounds of basic matrix multiplication, scattered across 100 different computers, we finally get one token. Do it again for the next token. And the next. Thousands of rounds of arithmetic, posted between cities by hand, to produce a sentence. At no point in this process has any machine had any awareness of any meaning. Each step is just numbers going into numbers. The meaning only emerges upon observation. We happen to like the results, so we infer meaning. Where's the consciousness? In the pencil? The postman? If you cannot justify consciousness in such a situation then "complex behaviour" is a totally invalid metric for evaluating consciousness. You're just stunned that the eyes of the painting follow you around the room.
Lachlan Phillips exo/acc 👾 tweet media
Eliezer Yudkowsky@allTheYud

Simple way to see this is wrong: If you view a system as having inputs (like hearing something) and outputs (like saying something) then you can divide system properties by whether or not they affect I/O. Claude's weights somewhere storing "Paris is in France" affect I/O if you ask a question about Paris. The exact mass of the power supply to the GPU rack for that Claude instance doesn't affect I/O. That Claude instance being made out of silicon instead of carbon, or electricity in wires instead of water in pipes, doesn't affect I/O given a fixed algorithm above the wires or pipes. Nothing Claude can internally do will make anything get damp inside, if it's running on electricity. Nothing about "electricity vs water" can affect Claude's output for the same reason. It always answers the same way about France. Nothing Claude can internally compute will let it notice whether it's made of electricity or water flowing through pipes. When someone says "a simulated storm can't get anything wet", they are unwittingly pointing to the difference between the physical layer and the informational/functional layer. Things that the computer physics affect without affecting output; things that affect the output without depending on the exact computer-physics. The material it's made of doesn't affect the output. The output can't see the material because no algorithm can be made to depend on the choice of material. You can always run the same algorithm on different material, so you can't make the algorithm depend on that, so the output can't depend on that. By reflecting on your awareness of your own awareness, the fact of your own consciousness can make you say "I think therefore I am." Among the things you do know about consciousness is that it is, among other things, the cause of you saying those words. You saying those words can only depend on neurons firing or not firing, not on whether the same patterns of cause and effect were built on tiny trained squirrels running memos around your brain. You couldn't notice that part from inside. It would not affect your consciousness. That's why humans had to discover neurobiology with microscopes instead of introspection. Consciousness is in the class of things that can affect your behavior and can't depend on underlying physics, not in the class of direct properties of underlying physics that can't affect your behavior. A simulated rainstorm can't get anything wet. Running on electricity versus water can't change how you say "I think therefore I am." And that's it. QED.

English
254
42
956
302.6K
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@bouncingrocks @YosarianTwo But also this is kinda the whole discussion, “intelligence” is a somewhat amorphous concept, like ask someone in 1950 if beating a grand master in chess requires intelligence and they’d say absolutely
English
1
0
4
43
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@bouncingrocks @YosarianTwo I would probably say it was intelligent exclusively in the domain of chess, and to your point, having an AI which could do 1 thing really well is easy to come by, but I think an ai trained to predict text, being able to even kinda solve these puzzles shows broader intelligence
English
1
0
5
40
Yosarian2
Yosarian2@YosarianTwo·
I really want "AI can not be intelligent by defintion" people to explain what they mean by "intelligence". Or better yet, to make concrete predictions about what they think LLM's won't be able to do because they lack "intelligence" and then notice when they do those things.
onion person@CantEverDie

my biggest pet peeve around LLMs is when people (usually those invested in its success) call it “intelligent”. it definitionally, how it functions on a base level, is not intelligent. the way LLMs are built, it can never hit real intelligence. it’s just predictive

English
84
23
556
38.8K
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@bouncingrocks @YosarianTwo arcprize.org/arc-agi/3 What do you think about this? Its a bunch of small “puzzles” which are completely new so the LLM hasn’t seen them before you can go through and solve them yourself, and while LLM struggle tremendously they are able to solve them
English
1
0
4
54
Kiwi 𐑒𐑰𐑢𐑰 ☯︎🐬
@madjam1231 @YosarianTwo the simplest way would be to try to get something that would be a wholly original thought, like if you were able to ask it questions it knew nothing about or that there was no currently available answer to
English
2
0
2
59
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@bouncingrocks @YosarianTwo do you have an example of that in mind? based on my understanding of what you’re saying, is the question “I want to wash my car, the car wash is 100ft away, should I walk or drive there?” A good example of something that they can’t do?
English
1
0
2
55
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@RickKiessig @YosarianTwo Not trying to do a “gotcha” here, but how do you define “understanding”? I loosely define it as “having a world view and being able to utilize that world view when reasoning” which might not be a good definition lol
English
1
0
0
14
Rick Kiessig
Rick Kiessig@RickKiessig·
@YosarianTwo You can start with Searle's Chinese Box. Intelligence requires understanding. Prediction: LLMs will never understand anything. What will they never be able to do? Anything that requires subjective experience.
English
1
0
1
61
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@bouncingrocks @YosarianTwo Obviously a very simple example, but would this fit your definition of syllogistic reasoning? I used nonsense for the nouns so it’s not just finding this example in its dataset
madjam tweet media
English
1
0
4
118
Kiwi 𐑒𐑰𐑢𐑰 ☯︎🐬
@YosarianTwo and that inability will limits it from what we conventionally call "thinking." and if it cant do that, then it cant do much beyond what it does now, which is essentially data collation
English
2
0
4
123
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@Shieldlesscap @YosarianTwo arcprize.org/arc-agi/2 Would something like this fit that definition for you? It’s a bunch of small “puzzles” which were created specifically for this, so the LLMs solving them haven’t seen these before. And LLMs were able to solve them(not as well as humans could though)
English
1
0
0
21
Ayerbe
Ayerbe@Shieldlesscap·
@YosarianTwo Ability to understand and reason with information that falls outside of a pre-existing knowledge base, next question
English
2
0
3
352
Bren
Bren@MandalorianGe0·
@YamiryuNoKage @GazaVictryRoyal @CameronCorduroy It was a bad nuclear deal that didn't address the underlying conflict. If this one deals with the actual conflict then it will bring actual peace. If it doesn't then it will have been a waste of time, just like Obama's deal.
English
2
0
0
48
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@columnistmike @PatrickHeizer I think the point he’s trying to make is that it’s in the same legal category as cigarettes, but that goes towards your point that it’s nuanced. But from what I can tell tobacco products make up a large portion of theft(although it may be due to high resale value)
English
0
0
0
22
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@JeffWin57756218 @SpecialPuppy1 Works better to achieve what exactly? I feel like most EC discussions are people talking past each other since they have completely different criteria for what a “good” election is supposed to represent
English
0
0
1
47
OldTrek
OldTrek@JeffWin57756218·
@SpecialPuppy1 The system we have now works as designed and works better than ANY alternative. Stupid discussion since ANY change will require a change the US Constitution.
English
9
0
3
371
Special Puppy 🧦🐵
Special Puppy 🧦🐵@SpecialPuppy1·
Would supporters of the Electoral College be okay with every state allocating electoral votes proportionally? For example, if Trump won 38% of the vote in California, he’d get about 21 of California’s electoral votes instead of 0. If not, why not?
James Surowiecki@JamesSurowiecki

There's no good civic argument for the electoral college. It was arguably necessary to ensure the ratification of the Constitution, but it's an anti-democratic device that gives some American citizens far more voting power than others, based purely on where they live.

English
266
6
381
78.6K
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@BigOlYamBag @5149jamesli how are they prevented from ever closing the strait? and if you’re willing to trust them at their word that they won’t enrich, then we had that with the JCPOA under Obama
English
1
0
59
2.6K
Tomfoolery
Tomfoolery@BigOlYamBag·
@5149jamesli Bozo doesn't understand that it's not the same. Biggest differences...Minus the potential for them to ever close the strait and minus the nukes, because they agreed they'd never enrich again too.
English
7
1
25
16.7K
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@exxcllnt @Staroxvia I mean this argument is always goomba fallacy, but literally what part of OPs post makes you think she’s sayings it a good thing and not just a neutral thing
English
0
0
0
33
excy
excy@exxcllnt·
@Staroxvia "it isn't happening" -> "it is happening but it's a good thing"
English
4
0
4
3K
Jarod Kristiansen
Jarod Kristiansen@JarodK19794·
@LilithLovett I'd rather have tariffs than whatever stupid shit biden's admin spent our tax dollars on
English
5
0
2
1.7K
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@Desk_Jockey1 @TimmyFacciola_ What makes you say this? has nyc historically had issues with this? or has this been happening while mamdani has been mayor?
English
0
0
0
22
Hard Day's Night
Hard Day's Night@Desk_Jockey1·
@TimmyFacciola_ The whole point of the tax is that the communities they pretend to care so much about are the last ones who will see any of the money. Watch where the money goes. To an NGO? Non-profit? If so, kiss the money goodbye. There is no oversight or accounting of that money
English
1
0
7
5.8K
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@noahlt @deanwball I *think* it’s that the idea of a kill switch is silly, like if the AI is evil and has broken containment then theres a million copies of it out in the world, the. There’s no way to have a kill switch
English
0
0
2
635
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@MichaelJFollett @JaHathawnh @adamjohnsonCHI Like no, I agree that gambling debt is real, from what I can tell like 20% of American men having gambling debts, but is the op(isa breen) interpreting the 52% figure as the percent in debt? I think there’s just a miscommunication and Jake was a bit rude about it
English
1
0
1
101
Michael Follett
Michael Follett@MichaelJFollett·
@madjam1231 @JaHathawnh @adamjohnsonCHI Where do you think the money comes from to load the cards? You're telling me that you don't understand that people stop paying their mortgage or other bills and instead use that money to gamble?
English
2
0
1
215
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@JaHathawnh @adamjohnsonCHI No I’m with you, I’m not sure what they mean unless they’re using debt in a different way or something works in a way I don’t know.
English
1
0
2
1.2K
Jake
Jake@JaHathawnh·
@adamjohnsonCHI Tell me I’m wrong lmao. You don’t go into debt when you load your account ! Not even saying there are not systematic problems but literally by design you cannot go into debt
English
47
1
30
14.5K
madjam
madjam@madjam1231·
@JDStokes79 @fakechuck @fawwazanvilen I mean I’m willing to challenge my assumptions here, do you have case studies on this? Or any articles which show this? I’m usually more concerned that companies wouldn’t do anything about negative long term effects, like mine subsidence for example
English
0
0
3
92
Jon Stokes
Jon Stokes@JDStokes79·
@fakechuck @fawwazanvilen "This is easily shown to be false." If you consider your because-I-say-so and meaninglessly vague condescension adequate to show something to be false, then sure.
English
1
0
3
614