7·
13 hours agoOnly Bayes Can Judge Me
- 33 Posts
- 1.45K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 4th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I don’t know that we can offer you a good world, or even one that will be around for all that much longer. But I hope we can offer you a good childhood. […]
When “The world is gonna end soon so let’s just rawdog from now on” gets real
How much of this is the AI bubble collapsing vs. Ohiophobia
slophistry
JFC I click on the rocket alignment link, it’s a yud dialogue between “alfonso” and “beth”. I am not dexy’ed up enough to read this shit.
Spooks as a service
Utterly rancid linkedin post:
text inside image:
Why can planes “fly” but AI cannot “think”?
An airplane does not flap its wings. And an autopilot is not the same as a pilot. Still, everybody is ok with saying that a plane “flies” and an autopilot “pilots” a plane.
This is the difference between the same system and a system that performs the same function.
When it comes to flight, we focus on function, not mechanism. A plane achieves the same outcome as birds (staying airborne) through entirely different means, yet we comfortably use the word “fly” for both.
With Generative AI, something strange happens. We insist that only biological brains can “think” or “understand” language. In contrast to planes, we focus on the system, not the function. When AI strings together words (which it does, among other things), we try to create new terms to avoid admitting similarity of function.
When we use a verb to describe an AI function that resembles human cognition, we are immediately accused of “anthropomorphizing.” In some way, popular opinion dictates that no system other than the human brain can think.
I wonder: why?
lmao fuck off
It’s an anti-fun version of listening to dark side of the moon while watching the wizard of oz.
You didn’t link to the study; you linked to the PR release for the study. This and this are the papers linked in the blog post.
Note that the papers haven’t been published anywhere other than on Anthropic’s online journal. Also, what the papers are doing is essentially tea leaf reading. They take a look at the swill of tokens, point at some clusters, and say, “there’s a dog!” or “that’s a bird!” or “bitcoin is going up this year!”. It’s all rubbish dawg
This needed a TW jfc (jk, uh, sorta)
“Notably, O3-MINI, despite being one of the best reasoning models, frequently skipped essential proof steps by labeling them as “trivial”, even when their validity was crucial.”
LLMs achieve reasoning level of average rationalist
I’ve already depicted you as the virgin Robespierre… and that’s the limit of my knowledge wrt figures in the french revolution.
9·5 days agoYeah, accelerationism before e/acc always had the consequential component of “society breaks down as a result of the rapidly worsening situation”. So like many things out there, tech people have co-opted this term and corrupted its meaning. M18n, in his deranged e/acc post, decided that the accelerationism part just meant the gotta go fast part; his assertion was that more tech fast == more society gooder, with no mention of “democracy collapses and the tech bros take over”
Banger meme from artist Victoria Ying
description:
It’s a scene from White Lotus. A man and a woman are lying on beach chairs, having a conversation.
Panel 1, Man: ‘Why can’t you just like my generative AI “art?”’
Panel 2, Woman: ‘You have to be vulnerable enough to be bad at something to be good at it, but you’re too much of a coward.’
Panel 3, Woman: ‘Because you’re soulless.”
Panel 4: Man is speechless, visibly shook
Amazing. Who would have thought that an idiot regressive trying to turn the clock back to the 50’s would be such an impediment to e/acc.
Also: I mean trump is still accelerationist, just not in the way (all) the e/accs necessarily want. For the e/accs only concerned about the tech side of things, trump is demonstrably decel. But trump is accelerationist for the cryptofascists.
Bruh what is the fuckin y axis on this bad boi??
words that the AI-O-sphere are gonna vomit
OH. so two things.
- I obviously misread your comment, as my brain filtered “likes” into “views” as I guess it subconsciously thought that was more plausible.
- I believe on tiktok live specifically, you can like something multiple times, and it is counted. I occasionally watch a stream that floats at about 100 viewers, and sometimes this hits 100k likes over the course of two hours. So to hit 350m likes over the course of 25 hours, you might need like 280 viewers on average, which seems doable.*
*Please fact check this arithmetic. I have run out of motivation, in general
Edit #100: I jumped on said stream to see how it was going. Floating around 100, but hitting maybe 10k likes per hour. Apparently the booker stream hit 170k viewers at the tail end. 350m likes might actually be a little low, the dems need to up their spend on tiktok boosting
well ackthscthually after 9/11, the whole world got isekai’d where everyone exists in a game-like status point system. The 1st world is reserved for the top rank of humans, the n+1th world is worse than the nth world. IQ points = your int stat. This is just how it is, sorry
Jesus, what a fuck. Having spent time in both SF and NYC my guess is that this shithead’s SF pedestrian experience is getting in and out of ubers and the treadmills at equinox. That, and he is probably outwardly disdainful, which doesn’t go over well in NYC.
