@DaseindustriesLtd's banner p


late version of a small language model

64 followers   follows 27 users  
joined 2022 September 05 23:03:02 UTC

Tell me about it.


User ID: 745


late version of a small language model

64 followers   follows 27 users   joined 2022 September 05 23:03:02 UTC


Tell me about it.


User ID: 745

This is just Galeev's narrative, he's quite irrelevant. But those conspiracy theories are indeed his invention.

I think you might be a uniquely ineffective 151 IQ human if it doesn't seem plausible to you that a group of very smart humans could do extreme and perhaps existential harm. To me, the main thing preventing that seems to be not the inherent hardness or weakness of, say, COVID-Omicron-Ebola, but the resistance of an overwhelming majority of other humans (including both very smart ones and mediocre but well-organized ones).

As for what a superintelligent AI changes? Well for one thing, it eliminates the need to find a bunch of peers. And, with robots, the need for lab assistants.

And I have like 3% P(AI Doom).

Since @FD4280 has already quoted Pushkin, I'll do the usual with Galkosvky (he has a somewhat humorous quote for every occasion):

The event that took place in Plato's Athens was far from innocuous

And in general, the emergence of philosophy is simply and fully against nature. What prompted people to such a useless, fruitless and destructive endeavour? What manner of cause? – Sexual perversion. Ancient Greek society is a homosexual society, homosexual in a deep, committed sense. One need only read the works of Aristophanes. They were written by a convinced pederast, and a pederast living in an appropriately arranged, congruous pederastic world at that. Socrates, too, was a pederast; Plato was a pederast as well. The Greek youth gathered around the learned men and formed philosophical unions of homosexual kind. Herein lies the precondition for the birth of philosophy. A young man, unlike a girl, has intellect, which creates the opportunity of intellectual courtship. After all, what can be more attractive and tempting for a man than a wonderful conversation on lofty topics? The most mediocre, pathetic male's eyes light up should you start talking to him about eternal issues. And Socrates, so absorbed in Eros, but, alas, unshapely, threw all his energies into the creation of the palace of reason; and as a result – what a catch! – the handsome Alcibiades fell in love with him. It was Eros that begat the revolution, otherwise it is utterly incomprehensible why the shell of naive everyday consciousness would have burst.

But the nascent fire of the Logos was so bright, so dazzling, that not only some dirty homosexuality (which even among the Greeks was seen as somewhat sinful), but the whole world, and life itself, began to seem a dirty and dark cave. Socrates refused the love of Alcibiades and then drank hemlock. Aphrodite the Vulgar turned into Aphrodite Urania. Love for woman, the inferior being, into love for the perfect being, man; carnal love – into perfect, Platonic love, into male intellectual friendship – into the brotherhood of philosophers. Then into love for the idea of Love, and love for the world of ideas, identified by Plato with the realm of Hades, the god of the dead and the netherworld.

The fire of philosophy since then was passed among people as something given, cleansed of its original filth. After asexualisation, there even came the time for heterosexualisation of philosophy. Having become a social phenomenon, it was mirrored in the world of women. A woman cannot comprehend the worth of a philosopher, but she can see that in the male intellectual world her chosen one is deeply respected for some reason. And that turns out to be enough. Philosophy has become a much more normal phenomenon, more adapted to real life. After all, this adaptation has been going on for two and a half millennia. And yet, we should not forget the rather rakish history of the birth of self-consciousness.


You see how complicated it all is, how contradictory. Paradox atop a paradox. A young man goes to a literary club, is fond of weightlifting, wanders around city parks at night in a woman's dress, writes abstruse poetry, and has cut his arms with a razor. Who would have ever expected it! What a complex young man! And yet he's not complex. He's a pederast. A pederast is always busy, his eyes are always restless, a young man is ceaselessly in search. Homosexuals, after all, don't and can't have love. Only partners. Partners are exchanged quickly, sought by the lavatories at night. That's why you have to hustle day and night, "look for a dose".
There is such a profession - spies. They are complicated, contradictory…

(Galkovsky has a wife and three children, lives a very «boring» life, and generally despises people in unconventional relationships).

I am exceedingly clear in my accusation above, I believe.

You're a uniquely fake person, Hlynka. It's incredible how you falsify your down-to-earth practically-thinking red-triber creds, but actually hinge your beliefs on a half-understood galaxy brained theory and despise evidence or actual learning. You're much more similar to Eliezer Yudkowsky than to an average Joe in this, but at least Yud is sincere.

I think there's been a lot of foolishness in history but conflating consciousness and intelligence/formidability at solving consequentialist tasks is just too indefensible to bring up.

I think CIA people (Will Hurd), RAND people (Tasha McCauley) and Georgetown people (Helen Toner) on the board of OpenAI were keeping them informed at least a little bit, but who knows how they'll do now!

@HlynkaCG may be stretching the definition of «regression» past the breaking point in my view. But if one wants to argue that attention over 80 layers is «regression» over a trained collection of regressors, then fine, I won't stop it – categories were made for man, not… and all that. I think at this point it's a fool's errand to fight over such stuff manually instead of…

Well, typing some prompt like «How do large language models (transformers) correspond to regression-based ML algorithms? Answer at the level of PhD CS adjunct professor level. Focus on mechanistic details, not use cases» into a frontier model of your fancy. I quite like Claude 2's style but GPT-4 is still king.

Of course, that reference to regression is just a more specific way to diss the «complex statistical model», and a complex enough transformer model can approximate most anything in a compact domain (with some sane constraints, but as much can be said of the brain with its finite expressivity and learning capacity). Maybe we could talk about actual expressivity limits of some architectures, and orthodox Transformers can't learn to solve PARITY problem in the general case, but Universal Transformers do better, and path independent equilibrium models must do better still; at some point human+tool generalization will be comprehensively surpassed, and we'll be able to confidently say that an AI of such and such design and hyperparameters can learn everything a human mind can learn and more, and even does that in practice, and the question will be moot. Or is the question about the possibility to establish the correspondence between some types of data and some types of things, like, symbol sequences and thoughts?

I am not aware of some strong information-theoretical or broadly mathematical reason, which Hlynka and some other guy (@IGI-111 maybe?) alluded to, for believing this won't be done with known ML primitives in a few years. It looks to be about the «just» fallacy: some people think that if they understand the primitives (like regression, or gradient descent, or matmul – whatever abstraction layer they want to squint at), the full thing is «just» the interaction of those primitives and thus… something something… cannot be intelligent/conscious/superhuman/your option. I can't understand this way of thinking, it seems mainly ego-driven to me but that's a hypothesis, I literally cannot comprehend it, it does not compute.

This is all progressively far from the high-level generator of disagreement, which is… what is it again? And how many are there?

That said, I also do not share your theory of consciousness/personal identity, my views are closer to Christof Koch's. I think a high-quality computable upload of myself would be able to output thoughts in the distribution of my own (hell, one can finetune an LLM and see the resemblance already, it would even fool some); but it would be, for most intents and purposes, a p-zombie, even if you throw an «agentic» for loop on top. I do not subscribe to the Lesswrongian purely computational doctrine; I am a specific subject, not information about an object. For the same reason I would not use destructive teleportation nor advocate it to anyone, I think humans are causal entanglements, not blueprints for those.

It's one of many cases where the news media (at least here in Australia), technically report the story factually accurately, but but omits some details and is framed in such a way to only lead you to one conclusion. They can avoid claims of editorialising by claiming they are merely quoting and reporting on statements made by politicians, which is also true.

I would like to hear a journalist's perspective on this some day. Is it taught? Is the intuitive grokking of those rules – condemn the far-right mob, but don't explicitly spell out their casus belli, so the impression is that far-righters are just spontaneously violent – a job requirement? Am I too deep in a bubble and it's just common sense already to speak this way here and the other way around about George Floyd?

I suspect the tactic actually works – remember, 50% of people are below average, and the average ain't that high, and it's white people who are the target audience, so they just trust journalists to do a honest job.

I wonder what a dozen intelligent AGPs would have been able to make out of trans ideology if bound by a common Church and actual vigorous oppression. Even stuff like this is fairly compelling, in a demonic sense. And I probably know a dozen online characters who could do better…

It is entirely legitimate to value a people by the quality of civilization they are able to create.

Value is arbitrary, as are dimensions of quality under consideration. The particular kind of value system implied here is very Western and not Israeli at all. I suppose West Bank settlers create a certain kind of civilization; from the modern Western perspective, it's worthy of sanctioning, while from the Israeli one it deserves being subsidized and protected, even as they rebel against the secular powers. Because the latter's function of «quality» more or less collapses into boolean «Jewish or not».

More complex matters could be discussed but it doesn't matter. Only Westerners are weird enough to forget that, before all admiration for «civilization» measured in homing missiles or GDP or Nobel prizes per capita, there's the very simple concept of the political. Neither Arabs nor Jews will ever forget it.

You know, there's something uniquely wrong in this popular genre of «Western» «conservative» reasoning, that goes beyond what Seldowitz or any Arab terrorist could do. You serve unashamed tribalism of another tribe, and defend it with lofty universalist rhetoric about «civilization and barbarism».

What are those «our» values that the civilized abuser Seldowitz represents and the street vendor, whose transgression is in line with transgressions of white leftists, does not? Civilization is not about being educated enough to do more than sell street food. If there is anything to the Western civilization as a proposition and not pure empirical capability, it's the belief that «values» go beyond alliances of convenience, brute kinship and right of the mighty, that there exist principles and morally sound laws. Who plays more by the rules and laws of the West, and who exploits them more in this situation? Who reciprocates goodwill, and who has defected barbarically?

And, as you say, an attack on the Israeli is an attack on you, but does this work the other way around? Say, Bari Weiss, the kind of person who generates pretraining data for your soul, argues that antisemitism is a sign that the society itself is breaking down. Was the long culture war against whites and «the West», discussed in this community for so long, seen as a dire sign for the Jews? I suppose some clever and provocative ones saw it this way – in outlets so radioactive nobody would in their right mind cite them. Most others were just content to clarify they're not white, or at least not the hate-deserving shade of white.

And, I mean, that's fair enough. Every bloodline for itself, that's how the game is played since protozoa. I'm not under the impression that the CNN and the Guardian are paragons of «The West» or advocate for equal standards either: they report on Seldowitz solely because the progressive faction they represent and pander to is currently more sympathetic to Muslims, even Hamas supporters, than to Zionist Jews. But I appreciate that they do not invoke those ideas which I think would really deserve protection.

It is a massive jump between «power-seeking is an emergent property of intelligence» and «arranging stuff so that your goals are reachable cheaper is rewarded in competitive conditions». Though some see it as the same thing.

How's it going my dude?

Cynicism is a cope of dysfunctional people.


Altman has demonstrated extreme willingness to help great number of people, this isn't about numbers on screen but about demonstrated goodwill. I've yet to learn as much about Shear.

Anyway, I'll leave this to munch on

Two can play this game. «Motte: AI safety is about safeguarding humanity. Bailey: we're building our AI god to shape the light cone to our fancy.» It's remarkable how you can't conceive of a less totalizing vision.

It seems I failed to send my comment. a pity.

The situation is developing rapidly, and to be honest I think it's more interesting than the Israeli-Palestinian thing or even the election of Milei. Wonder what we'll learn today.

Ok but he's literally having some fixation on this Roscoe person, I had to check https://twitter.com/search?q=roscoe%20from%3Agadsaad&src=typed_query

Come on now. Gad Saad's long-running beef with the archetypal "Roscoe" is entirely motivated by Roscoe being a rural white hick on whom it's acceptable, fashionable and fun to dunk, not by him buying into SS-style politics.

If the US military goes blue top to bottom, any kind of red tribe insurrection in the US becomes substantially more difficult.

Wouldn't you argue that optimizing for insurrection conditions, by adding your body to the mutiny pile at that, is a ludicrous political agenda in any case? I would. Like, this is some 1907 Russian sailor shit.

I dislike people dancing around the issue.

There is a massive population of white Americans, mainly Evangelicals, who had been indoctrinated with this meaningless Judeo-Christian gibberish that just means "everything good in the world". Invoking «Judeo-Christian» is the master key to getting their cooperation in literally any matter: they'll automatically recall "everything good" (freedom, democracy, tradition, civilization, antiwoke, diversity, LGBT rights, Christ, Rapture, our Middle Eastern allies – doesn't matter, details of what counts as goodness will be prompted by the context of the Current Year, they don't really have stable moral doctrines) and associate it with you, then go and kill or die for whatever cause you propose… Or, at least, that seems to be the theory driving Republican politics (and politicking on Republican-coded but in actuality bipartisan issues). The problem is that these people were a little bit too successfully dunked upon in years where great power conflict seemed less probable, and warm bodies less needed, than in the near future. They've been somewhat jaded and demoralized and alienated and their demographic representation has simply shrunk. New Atheism has been complicit in this.

So now we will be having New Atheist influencers peddling this stuff harder (and old fighters for Pure Reason like Gad Saad will be asked to pipe it down with habitual anti-whitey remarks). We'll also be seeing more "based" recruiting ads for the Army. As Trump has proven, the Republican base only asks for tokens of respect, nothing more, so I expect this vulgar pandering to work well.

I think there's nothing to be learned and, accordingly, nothing to be debated in matters of faith (if not in matters preceding those axiomatic ones).

Baidu placed AI chip order from Huawei in shift away from Nvidia

Baidu ordered 1,600 of Huawei Technologies' 910B Ascend AI chips - which the Chinese firm developed as an alternative to Nvidia's A100 chip - for 200 servers, the source said, adding that by October, Huawei had delivered more 60% of the order, or about 1,000 chips, to Baidu.

The second person said that the order's total value was approximately 450 million yuan ($61.83 million) and that Huawei was to deliver all of the chips by the end of this year. Both people declined to be named because the details of the deal were confidential.

Allegedly these chips are on par with A100s. Well, that's a start.

I liked the interview for giving a hint of just how strongly Israelis believe in the demographic dimension of history. Mainstream or not, her side will become more mainstream through their efforts at expanding their Lebensraum and effortfully breeding; and their vigor will win over tired moderates even over this purely biological growth. I'm fairly sure we will see her maximalist ambitions of a massive Israeli empire normalized in some decades. What is impossible often becomes possible when enough people believe in it.

I also think this whole war episode has strengthened my thesis that Israel doesn't depend on the US much, doesn't care for what the US thinks, and frankly isn't any sort of an «outpist of Western liberalism in the sea of barbarism» but just a powerful, autonomous civilization state on its own already.

My least favorite part is her shrill denialism here:

In a lot of these places where settlements have been developed, from 1967 to the present day, there have been Palestinian communities and Palestinian families. What is your feeling about where these people should go?

It’s the opposite. None of the communities in Judea and Samaria are founded on an Arab place or property, and whoever says this is a liar. I wonder why you said it. Why did you say that, since you have no idea about the real facts of history? That’s not true. The opposite is true. Who got this idea into your mind?

Palestinian communities have been removed from their land, kicked off their land by—

No, you never read things like that. No. There are no pictures. [According to a report by Btselem, an Israeli human-rights group, parts of Kedumim, where Weiss lives, were built on private Palestinian land; in 2006, Peace Now found that privately owned Palestinian land comprised nearly forty per cent of the territory of West Bank settlements and outposts.]

O.K. I’m a little surprised you are denying this. I thought you were going to say, “It’s O.K. to kick Palestinians off land because it belongs to the Jewish people.”

You did no homework before you interviewed me. Everything that you say is the opposite of my personality and my philosophy. You are interviewing a person, and you don’t know anything about them. It’s very strange. I’ve never encountered a situation like this.

I was trying to understand where Palestinians who live in the West Bank should go.

Why should they go? Why should they go?


This kind of DARVO-like shrieking has always rustled my jimmies, but it seems to be normal in the Eastern discourse, and will be normalized further in the future. People on the right will be begging to get the genteel progressive assimilated Jews back.

I do not believe that any law is ontologically binding, and European countries have displayed general willingness to abide by the international law (which they've pioneered in codifying). So it is in fact important what the law says.