SnapDragon
8mo ago
Biology and physics are old sciences compared to climate science. And the list of amazing things we've done with biology and physics over the last 200 years is insanely long. I guess you're saying that we should give climate science the same level of veneration, even without actual results and useful predictions, because it (ostensibly) uses the same processes. But even if you pretend that climate science is conducted with the same level of impartial truth-seeking - despite the incredible political pressure behind it - that's still missing the point that science is messy and often gets things wrong. Even in biology (e.g. Lamarckism) or physics (e.g. the aether). It takes hundreds of repeated experiments and validated predictions before a true "consensus" emerges (if even then). Gathering together a consensus and skipping that first step is missing the point.
And remember, skepticism is the default position of science. It's not abnormal. Heck, we had people excitedly testing the EmDrive a few years back, which would violate conservation of momentum! We didn't collectively say "excommunicate the Conservation of Momentum Deniers!"
Regardless, I'm not saying that climate science or the models are entirely useless. Like you said, the greenhouse effect itself is pretty simple and well-understood (though it only accounts for a small portion of the warming that models predict). There's good reason to believe warming will happen. Much less reason to believe it'll be catastrophic, but that's a different topic!
SnapDragon
10mo ago
So, I admit this is a well-written, convincing argument. It's appreciated! But I still find it contrasts with common sense (and my own lying eyes). I can, say, imagine authorities arresting me and demanding to know my email password. I would not cooperate, and I would expect to be able to get access to a lawyer before long. In reality there's only one way they'd get the password: torturing me. And in that case, they'd get the password immediately. It would be fast and effective. I'm still going to trust the knowledge that torture would work perfectly on me over a sociological essay, no matter how eloquent.
SnapDragon
1yr ago
I think your hypothetical scenarios are a little mixed up. You mention confessions in your first case, because (yes, of course) confessions gained under torture aren't legitimate. Which has nothing to do with the War on Terror argument, or the second part where you mention finding an IED cache. That's information gathering, and that's the general case.
Note that:
-
All information you get from a suspect, voluntary, coerced, or via torture, is potentially a lie. Pretending that torture is different in this way is special pleading.
-
You invented a highly contrived scenario to show the worst-case consequences of believing a lie. There are dozens of ways of checking and acting on information that are less vivid.
-
The main difference that torture has is there are some suspects for which it is the only way of getting useful information. It sucks, but this is the Universe we live in.
As for the "ticking time bomb" thought experiment, that's not highlighting one special example where torture works. That's just showing where the torture-vs-not distinction (the ethical conundrum, like you said) becomes sharpest. Most people have some threshold X at which saving X lives is worth torturing one person. It arguably shouldn't make a difference whether those lives are direct (a bomb in a city) or indirect (stopping a huge attack 2 years down the line), but we're human, so it does.
SnapDragon
1yr ago
Yes, I'm really glad to see someone else point this out! One thing that's interesting about LLMs is that there's literally no way for them to pause and consider anything - they do the same calculations and output words at exactly the same rate no matter how easy or hard a question you ask them. If a human is shown a math puzzle on a flashcard and is forced to respond immediately, the human generally wouldn't do well either. I do like the idea of training these models to have some "private" thoughts (which the devs would still be able to see, but which wouldn't count as output) so they can mull over a tough problem, just like how my inner monologue works.
SnapDragon
3mo ago
"Brutally" slaughtering a pig in "disgusting" "industrial" conditions? Those are very subjective words. The pig doesn't care that it's not being given a dignified sendoff by its loving family at the end of a fulfilled life in a beautiful grassy glade with dandelions wafting in the breeze. Humans fear death; animals don't even understand the concept. As long as we kill them quickly, I really don't give a shit how it's done.
Which isn't to say I don't have concerns about factory farming. The rest of the pig's life may be filled with suffering, and (IMO) we're rich enough, as a society, to do better. My morality-o-meter is ok with sacrificing, say, 0.01% of value to humans to improve the life of pigs by 500%.
SnapDragon
3mo ago
On most forums, if you're a bad actor waging the culture war, it's probably a decent strategy to post a bunch of links like this that are ridiculous non-sequiturs. Most people are too lazy to follow them and have the (usually reasonable) assumption that what's said in them is being accurately represented. Fortunately, I think The Motte is better than that. Looking forward to guesswho's inevitable (re-)permabanning. We need good leftist posters, but he's not one.
SnapDragon
4mo ago
Ugh, what a ridiculous take. The ability to move a body and process senses and learn behaviour that generates food is miraculous, yes. We can't build machines that come close to this yet. It's amazing that birds can do it! And humans! And cats, dogs, pigs, mice, ants, mosquitos, and 80 million other species too. Gosh, wow, I'm so agog at the numinous wondrousness of nature.
That doesn't make it intelligence. Humans are special. Intelligence is special. Until transformers and LLMs, every single story, coherent conversation, and, yes, Advent of Code solution was the creation of a human being. Even if all development stops here, even if LLMs never get smarter and these chatbots continue to have weird failure modes for you to sneer at, something fundamental has changed in the world.
Do you think you're being super deep by redefining intelligence as "doing what birds can do?" I'd expect that from a stoner, not from a long-standing mottizen. Words MEAN things, you know. If you'd rather change your vocabulary than your mind, I don't think we have anything more to discuss.
SnapDragon
4mo ago
So, I gave this a bit of a try myself on Day 3, which ChatGPT failed in your test and on Youtube. While I appreciate that you framed this as a scientific experiment with unvarying prompts and strict objective rules, you're handicapping it compared to a human who has more freedom to play around. Given this, I think your conclusions that it can't debug are a bit too strong.
I wanted to give it more of the flexibility of a human programmer solving AoC, so I made it clear up front that it should brainstorm (I used the magic "think step by step" phrase) and iterate, only using me to try to submit solutions to the site. Then I followed its instructions as it tried to solve the tasks. This is subjective and still pretty awkward, and there was confusion over whether it or I should be running the code; I'm sure there's a better way to give it the proper AoC solving experience. But it was good enough for one test. :) I'd call it a partial success: it thought through possible issues and figured out the two things it was doing wrong on Day 3 Part 1, and got the correct answer on the third try (and then got Part 2 with no issues). The failure, though, is that it never seemed to realize it could use the example in the problem statement to help debug its solution (and I didn't tell it).
Anyway, the transcript's here, if you want to see ChatGPT4 troubleshooting its solution. It didn't use debug output, but it did "think" (whatever that means) about possible mistakes it might have made and alter its code to fix those mistakes, eventually getting it right. That sure seems like debugging to me.
Remember, it's actually kind of difficult to pin down GPT4's capabilities. There are two reasons it might not be using debug output like you want: a) it's incapable, or b) you're not prompting it right. LLMs are strange, fickle beasts.
SnapDragon
7mo ago
Sorry, it sounds like you want some easy slam-dunk argument against some sort of cartoonish capital-L Libertarian, but that's not who you're speaking to. :) I don't want NO government and NO regulations - of course some regulations are good. But that says nothing about whether we have TOO MUCH government and TOO MUCH regulation right now. Most of the important obviously good stuff has been in the system for decades (if not centuries), because it's, well, important. And even if we kicked legislators out for 51 weeks out of every 52, the important stuff would still pass because it's, well, important. I happen to believe that most of what our modern legislators do IS net-negative, and I'm afraid you can't just hand-wave that away with a strawman argument.
As for YIMBYs, bless your heart Charlie Brown, you keep trying to kick that football. Surely one day they'll win! You yourself linked an article about the dire straits we're in. "Don't try to stop or slow down the government, we need it to fix all the problems caused by the last 50 years of government!"
SnapDragon
7mo ago
I do appreciate what you're saying here. I think most people here are just used to the ridiculous media caricatures of Jan. 6, and lumping you into the same bag. I'm not a fan of Trump, but still I could easily imagine myself in the shoes of some of the random people in that crowd. They came for a protest, obviously, not planning to overthrow Congress and impose Trump as El Presidente. Then all of a sudden, they're in the Capitol building, probably having no idea why except that's where the amorphous crowd went. They shout a bit, take a few photos, and go home, then find out that they're now on a watch list and barred from air travel and at serious risk of prosecution.
Oh, and note that one of them was literally shot and killed. The media described this (and four people dying from health issues) as "a protest that led to five deaths." Which is about as honest as reporting that George Floyd "committed a crime at a convenience store that led to one death".
This isn't how we should treat protestors, left or right. You're allowed to protest! And to be clear, the peaceful BLM protestors should also not face any consequences - it's not their fault some opportunists used the protests (and media cover) as a convenient excuse to attack people, set fires, and loot stores.
Yeah, this is the most shocking stuff The Telegraph (obviously a very biased source) could come up with? The audio they spliced in does sound very panicked, but it doesn't match with much of what's happening in the video. I note that nothing was on fire, and the only thing approaching a weapon that any of the rioters used in that footage was a hockey stick (not clear what they were hitting with it, hopefully not a person). Decidedly NOT what you could say about footage of the BLM riots.
EDIT: I mean, I do agree that it wasn't "peaceful and polite". There was clearly anger, and some people went too far.
SnapDragon
8mo ago
Well, sure, in a vacuum most people gravitate towards censoring speech they don't like. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. We shouldn't structure society around people's natural destructive impulses; we should structure society around what allows humans to flourish. And we've known for centuries that that is a free and open exchange of ideas. Not because there are no ideas which are genuinely harmful! But because humans and human organizations are too fickle, ignorant, and self-interested to be trusted as arbiters of which ideas meet that standard.
SnapDragon
9mo ago
Well, you only need a "trial" when the outcome is important, like which prison to send an inmate to. And we already have a trial system for that; seems like the judge is in the best position to determine which prison would be appropriate, alongside all the other aspects of sentencing.
But in normal life, if we just acknowledge that it's not Literal Genocide to occasionally use the wrong pronouns, no trial is needed. Sure, if you're one of the rare edge cases where people genuinely mistake what gender you prefer, then you might have to keep announcing it and correcting people. It sucks a little, but not a lot.
SnapDragon
9mo ago
Well, yes? An NFL player would be enough by itself, but it looks like he also started a charity foundation. He undoubtedly has strong sponsorship and college connections. Clearly the definition of "elite" is going to be subjective, but do you think a former NFL player is going to be turned away from a schmoozy high-status party?
Some people on The Motte seem to have really REALLY high standards. Maybe you're Silicon Valley CEOs slumming it with the rest of us. :)
SnapDragon
10mo ago
What do you think our long-term future in the galaxy looks like? Is it really likely that our technological civilization will just poof out with no real impact? (Even the AI doom scenario involves a superintelligence that will start gobbling up the reachable Universe.) This is the argument underlying the Fermi Paradox: we have only one example of an intelligent civilization, and there seems to be little standing in the way of us spreading through and changing the galaxy in an unmissable way. Interstellar travel is quite hard, but not impossibly so. The time scale for this would be measured in millions of years, which is barely a hiccup in cosmological terms. So why didn't someone else do it first?
On a similar note, I'm very confident I'm not standing next to a nuclear explosion (probability well below 0.001%). Am I overconfident? Ok, yes, I'm being a bit cheeky - the effects of a nuclear explosion are well understood, after all. The chance that there's a "great filter" in our future that would stop us and all similar civilizations from spreading exponentially is a lot larger than 0.001%.
SnapDragon
11mo ago
...she didn't intend to expose confidential or classified information and most of the email saga came down to a mixture of negligence and pride...
...It was the pride of "owning" them...
Um, your justification seems to apply equally to both Hillary and Trump, even by your own words. So far as I know, nobody is accusing Trump of actually intending to expose the information.
SnapDragon
11mo ago
Well, no... "costs" and "what consumers are willing to pay" are both important factors that go into the price. If the manufacturer's costs go up, then the equilibrium price at which profits are maximized goes up too (although the manufacturer would make less absolute profit overall). That's the real misconception that I think you're pointing at: many people, including the OP, think that prices are completely determined by the seller. In reality, sellers are already maximally greedy, so they want to find this equilibrium price point that maximizes profits. This makes price a signal that they're measuring, not something that they directly control.
Minimum wage debates tend to sadden me, because there's always somebody saying "McDonald's can just compensate by charging $1 more for a burger", making this silly mistake. As if McDonald's is just leaving all that extra money on the table, until it's forced to collect it to pay wages...
SnapDragon
1yr ago
"Long ago"? ChatGPT is 5 months old and GPT4 is 3 months old. We're not talking about a technology long past maturity, here. There's plenty of room to experiment with how to get better results via prompting.
Personally, I use GPT4 a lot for my programming work (both coding and design), and it still gets things wrong and occasionally hallucinates, but it's definitely far better than GPT3.5. Also, as mentioned above, GPT4 can often correct itself. In fact, I've had cases where it says something I don't quite understand, I ask for more details, and it freely admits that it was wrong ("apologies for the confusion"). That's not perfect, but still better than if it doubles down and continues to insist on something false.
I'm still getting the hang of it, like everyone else. But an oracle whose work I need to check is still a huge productivity boon for me. I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true in the medical industry.
SnapDragon
1yr ago
Really? Name the centuries-old historical counterpart to movies on DVD, music on CD, videogames, software suites, drug companies, ... I could go on. Sure, people used to go to live plays and concerts. Extremely rich patrons used to personally fund the top 0.1% of scientists and musicians. It was not the same.
SnapDragon
1yr ago
Here, since you asked for specifics, let me recount one of the most impressive conversations I had with Bing AI. (Unfortunately it doesn't seem to save chat history, so this is just paraphrasing from memory. I know that's a little less impressive, sorry.)
Me: In C++ I want to write a memoized function in a concise way; I want to check and declare a reference to the value in a map in one single call so I can return it. Is this possible?
Bing: Yes, you can do this. (Writes out some template code for a memoized function with several map calls, i.e. an imperfect solution).
Me: I'd like to avoid the multiple map calls, maybe using map::insert somehow. Can I do this?
Bing: Sure! (Fixes the code so it uses map::insert, then binds a reference to it->second, so there's only one call).
Me: Hmm, that matches what I've been trying, but it hasn't been compiling. It's complaining about binding the reference to an RValue.
Bing: (explanation of what binding the reference to an RValue means, which I already knew.)
Me: Yes, but shouldn't it->second be an LValue here? (I give my snippet of code.)
Bing: Hmm, yes, it should be. Can you tell me your compile error?
Me: (Posts compile error.)
Bing: You are right that this is an RValue compile error, which is strange because as you said it->second should be an LValue. Can you show me the declaration of your map?
(Now, checking, I realize that I declared the map with an incorrect value type and this was just C++ giving a typically unhelpful compile error.)
I want to emphasize that it wasn't an all-knowing oracle, and back-and-forth was required. But this conversation is very close to what I'd get if I'd asked a coworker for help. (Well, except that Bing is happy to constantly write out full code snippets and we humans are too lazy!)
SnapDragon
3mo ago
Maybe I'm missing some brilliant research out there, but my impression is we scientifically understand what "pain" actually is about as well as we understand what "consciousness" actually is. If you run a client app and it tries and fails to contact a server, is that "pain"? If you give an LLM some text that makes very little sense so it outputs gibberish, is it feeling "pain"? Seems like you could potentially draw out a spectrum of frustrated complex systems that includes silly examples like those all the way up to mosquitos, shrimp, octopuses, cattle, pigs, and humans.
It'd be nice if we could figure out a reasonable compromise for how "complex" a brain needs to be before its pain matters. It really seems like shrimp or insects should fall below that line. But it's like abortion limits - you should pick SOME value in the middle somewhere (it's ridiculous to go all the way to the extremes), but that doesn't mean it's the only correct moral choice.
Then I tried it on Day 7 (adjusting the prompt slightly and letting it just use Code Interpreter on its own). It figured out what it was doing wrong on Part 1 and got it on the second try. Then it did proceed to try a bunch of different things (including some diagnostic output!) and spin and fail on Part 2 without ever finding its bug. Still, this is better than your result, and the things it was trying sure look like "debugging" to me. More evidence that it could do better with different prompting and the right environment.
EDIT: Heh, I added a bit more to the transcript, prodding ChatGPT to see if we could debug together. It produced some test cases to try, but failed pretty hilariously at analyzing the test cases manually. It weakens my argument a bit, but it's interesting enough to include anyway.
SnapDragon
5mo ago
Maybe shot 5 times? Or maybe 32 times? I suppose there's not much difference between the two.
SnapDragon
9mo ago
| The AC example is striking, on the net it takes less energy to cool than to heat.
So, I was going to tear into you for what I thought was obvious physics nonsense. (Cooling, after all, goes against entropy, whereas heating is 100% efficient.) But after doing a little research I realized I didn't know what I was talking about - AC systems and heat pumps move heat around, and can do so more efficiently than simply pouring energy into the system. And, for whatever reason, it looks like AC typically has higher SEER ratings than heat pumps' HSPF (both being a measure of BTUs/Watt-hour). Whoops. I was about to be Wrong On The Internet.
Thought I'd post this reply anyway, rather than just being an anonymous person who learns something from your post but doesn't say anything. (Internet forums need more positive reinforcement...)
I'm a Putnam winner, and I don't think it's all that rarefied a category. I certainly don't dismiss out of hand the idea that Elon might be smarter than me. I'm probably better than him at math/programming, but I devoted my life to it and Elon didn't. If he'd had a different set of obsessions, maybe he'd have topped some other category instead of "richest man on Earth". (Heck, I wonder how many pro gaming champions might have been Elon - or a Fields Medalist - with a slightly different set of priorities...)
More options
Context Copy link