To avoid confirmation bias and subjective interpretation, we decided to leverage language models for a more objective analysis of the data. By providing the models with the complete set of notes, we aimed to uncover patterns and trends without our pre-existing notions and biases.
… the Hell?
The smug presumption that any brand of spicy autocomplete is a viable tool “to summarize information, simplify language, or test their knowledge” is so fucking galling.
More broadly, (ie not just in relation to Cory Doctorow), I’ve seen the take floating around that’s like “hey, what the heck, artists who were opposed to ridiculous IP rights restrictions when it was the music industry doing it are now in favor of those restrictions when it’s AI, what gives with this hypocrisy?” which I think kind of… misses the point?
I’ve noticed that too, on occasion. I think the “hey whoa, artists are copyright maximalists now?!” takes tend to miss how artists are coming from concerns about what is morally right and how they can make a living, not copyright as a principle. The latter is, at most, a tool to achieve the former.
With that in mind, a lot of the artist outrage over AI feels much more in line with artists getting mad about, say, watermark-removal tools, or people reposting art without credit, than it does with the copyright battles of the 00s.
This says it better than I was going to.
I’m sure that taking a noisy average of everything posted on Twitter about Gödel machines will produce a Gödel machine, any day now.
Step 2: the Gödel machine becomes the monolith from 2001 that can do anything not explicitly prohibited by the laws of physics
Yeah, that juxtaposition makes no sense to me. How does the machine that remixes existing text and makes it worse become anything that can “recursively self-improve”? Show your work.
Technical terms can still be, technically speaking, dumb as fuck.
If your “app” cannot show basic information about the forum to which you are posting, your “app” is bad.
“Sediment precipitated from”?
ANTA BAKA?!*
*translator’s note: baka means “plan”
Congratulations on missing the entire point of everything explained to you at considerable length and on coming back with a vintage not-pology.
The egress is that-a-way.
From what I recall from the halcyon days of science-blogging, it was more bad Gödel than bad Bayes, but a dose of the latter would be unsurprising.
Scott Aaronson says that Aschenbrenner displays “unusual clarity, concreteness, and seriousness”.
That’s it, that’s the joke
According to a Meta help page, Meta AI will respond to a post in a group if someone explicitly tags it or if someone “asks a question in a post and no one responds within an hour.”
God forbid it ever take longer than an hour for an actual human with actual knowledge to type a reply.
OOM-pa lOOM-pa dOOM-pa dee doo / I’ve got a waste of carbon for you
Electromagnetism is a standard subject covered in a bajillion books, so the training set is probably full of repeated explanations of the basic examples. That sounds like an excellent recipe for “AI” bilge-water that is just coherent enough for a student to miss where it goes wrong.
From the Philosophy Tube comment section:
Video is way too long. But I did go to chatGPT to ask extensively about this Judith Butler character.
A few months ago I was looking into Lojban and trying to figure out how I would translate “charge” (as in, “my laptop is charging”) and the best I could come up with is “pinxe lo dikca” (“drink electricity”)
So… if you think LLMs don’t drink, that’s your imagination, not mine.
My parents said that the car was “thirsty” if the gas tank was nearly empty, therefore gas cars are sentient and electric vehicles are murder, checkmate atheists
That was in the replies to this, which Yud retweeted:
Hats off to Isaac Asimov for correctly predicting exactly this 75 years ago in I, Robot: Some people won’t accept anything that doesn’t eat, drink, and eventually die as being sentient.
Um, well, actually, mortality was a precondition of humanity, not of sentience, and that was in “The Bicentennial Man”, not I, Robot. It’s also presented textually as correct…
In the I, Robot story collection, Stephen Byerley eats, drinks and dies, and none of this is proof that he was human and not a robot.
deleted by creator