@TequilaMockingbird's banner p

TequilaMockingbird

Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 June 08 03:50:33 UTC

				

User ID: 3097

TequilaMockingbird

Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2024 June 08 03:50:33 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3097

But we don't exclude them do we?

More like saying that the soyuz rocket is propelled by expanding combustion gasses only for somone to pop in and say no, its actually propelled by a mixture of kerosene and liquid oxygen. As i said in my reply below, you and @self_made_human are both talking about vector based embedding like its something that a couple guys tried in back in 2013 and nobody ever used again rather than a methodology that would go on to become a defacto standard approach across multiple applications. You're acting like if you open up the source code for a transformer you aren't going to find loads of matrix math for for doing vector transformations.

The old cliche about asking whether a submarine can swim is part of why I made a point to set out my parameters at the beginning, how about you set out yours.

Well said.

C'mon dude. If this is the third draft of the essay, I really expect more substantial rebuttal than this.

You misunderstand me. My response was not the third revision, it was the third attempt.

I don't know if you realize this, but you come across as extremely condescending and passive-agressive in text. It really is quite infuriating. I would sit down, start crafting a response, and as i worked through your post i would just get more angry/frustrated until getting to the point where id have to step away from the computer lest i lose my temper and say something that would get me moderated.

And that illustration was wrong.

As i acknowledged in my reply to @Amadan it would have been more accurate to say that it is part of why LLMs are bad at counting, but I am going to maintain that no, it is not "wrong". You and @rae are both talking about vector based embedding like its something that a couple guys tried in back in 2013 and nobody ever used again rather than a methodology that would go on to become a defacto standard approach across multiple applications. You're acting like if you open up the source code for a transformer you aren't going to find loads of matrix math for for doing vector transformations.

Why is the opinion of the "average American" the only standard by which to recognize AGI?

Why isn't it a valid standard? You are the one who's been accusing society of moving the goalposts on you. "the goalposts haven't actually moved" seems like a fairly reasonable rebuttal to me.

I had forgotten how much of your previous weak critique to the same evidence was based off naked credentialism. After all, you claimed:

I understand how my statements could be interpreted that way, but at the same time I am also one of the guys in my company who's been lobbying to drop degree requirements from hiring. I see myself as subscribing to the old hacker ethos of "show me the code". Its not about credentials its about whether you can produce tangible results.

The companies that spend hundreds of billions of dollars on AI are doing just fine.

For a given definition of fine, i still think OpenAI and Anthropic are grifters more than they are engineers but I guess we'll just have to see who gets there first.

As i have said in prior discussions of the topic, I fully believe that AGI is possible and even likely within my lifetime, but I am also deeply skeptical of the claims made by both AI boosters and AI doomers for the reasons stated above.

The basic methodology is still widely used today, GPT 4.0 and DeepSeek R1 being two modern examples.

Agriculture generates hundreds of billions in revenue, and is far mor essential to continuing civilisation than Orangutan or LLMs are. Does that make grain, or the tools used to sow and harvest it "intelligent" in your eyes? If not please explain.

As for comparing like to like, GPT loses games of Chess to an Atari 2700. Does that mean that rather than progressing AI has actually devolved over the last 40 years?