site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 11 of 11 results for

domain:aerosociety.com

An interesting idea. I think it's not being actively pursued because, companies like OAI don't see the economic value in such niche specialization unless it's for something as lucrative as say, producing a superhuman programmer. There's not much money in winning the Nobel Prize for Literature.

They also seem to me to be hoping that it's better to have general capabilities, and then let the user elicit what they need through prompting. If you want high-brow literary criticism, ask for it specifically, but by default, they know that mid-brow LM Arena slop and fancy formatting wins over the majority of users. Notice how companies no longer make a big deal out of the potential to make private finetunes of their models, instead claiming that RAG or search is sufficient given their flexibility and large context lengths. Which is true, IMO.

OAI did kinda-sorta half-arse personalization with their custom GPTs, but found no traction. Just the standard model becoming better made them obsolete.

I am skeptical that optimising for maths and engineering ability will produce intuitive social machines because, well…

Heh. Good one. However, look at Elon Musk or Zuck for examples of people who definitely lean more on technical abilities instead of people skills.

What's the moral of the tale, to you?

Be sure to pay the piper if you want to call the tune.

Broadly, the Hanania perspective is:

  1. Woke identity politics and the takeover of important positions by unqualified tokenism has been a disaster. Running the world’s premier empire and scientific machine requires strong competition to acquire and promote very intelligent, very knowledgeable people.
  2. Therefore we need a correction.
  3. Trump and his voters are not that correction. They don’t like woke identity politics and minority tokenism, but they want to replace it with rural white identity politics and affirmative action for the deluded. This is even worse than wokeness.
  4. Woke correction will not come from the left. Therefore attempt to destroy the MAGA right so that a smarter right can rise in its place. This right should encourage coloyrblindness, high immigration, low taxes, eugenics and globalism, and discourage white identity politics, conspiracy theories, religion and nationalism.

Can you point to the post where we said "being abrasive and antagonistic are totally different things, so see, darwin didn't admit to anything banworthy"?

Okay, come on, this is just pure reddit-tier boo-outgroup.

You are better than this.

Oh, I agree. I spent a big part of last year trying to create a personal assistant and the biggest reason for its failure was that I had no real way to judge its output.

What annoys me is that they seem to have ignored all of the ways you might optimise for this, let alone produced different products that you could trade off against each other. I would love to have one AI optimised for being lauded by literary critics, one for maximum mid-wit upvotes, etc. And you could always mix and match weights afterwards.

I am skeptical that optimising for maths and engineering ability will produce intuitive social machines because, well…

doesn't involve continuous high-intensity ground combat between armies.

Did our war in Afghanistan involve "continuous high-intensity ground combat between armies"? For that matter, how about the Yugoslav wars?

You're requiring undue burden of proof.

"Undue" relative to what? Again, I'm not arguing that intelligence isn't mediated by genetics, I'm just arguing that we laack sufficient evidence about specifically race-based genetics. And as per your other comment, while larger sample sized would be nice the problem remain the potential for confounders. At the root of the problem is the fact that races are essentialy pre-confounded; we know for a fact that people of different races lead different lifestyles of consistent but largely non-genetic reasons; any of those things will interfere with any attempt to say a particular trait is caused by genetics. Hell, take skin tone for example. We know unambiguously that genes mediate skin tone, but we also know for a fact that any attempt to survey ethnicities by skin tone and attempt to precisely predict the genetic effect would be confounded by the effect of distribution over latitude and likelyhood to tan.

But it looks like most of in-population variation is just slightly broken gene variants of ideal brain devised by evolution for current moment.

If you actually believe this, you should be more skeptical of hbd, not less. if there's one perfect brain, and iq is just about how close you are to it, the only selection pressures that would matter would be demerits for isolated populations with tight social structures that allow people with genetic defects to survive and breed. That looks like the exact opposite of the smart-jews HBD hypothesis.

think that if you were posting this from pro-HBD pespective, someone could write: A Racist Poster Compares Africans To Wolves By Implication.

I'm not on the motte because I'm interested in being politically correct.

It would make sense to compare teams made of people with similar IQ than than loners.

That we should be testing groups is well taken, but the "similar iq" part i disagree with. Even most nuclear families have significant IQ variation. In particular, I think that when resources (food, parental investment, status) are scarce, groups end up adopting tactics that concentrate iq gains in a few individuals (like by feeding the chief's firstborn son better food and working hard to educate him) while the rest are allowed to be dumber. Also, the "smartest" genes are probably relative to body dimensions... Maybe a gene that causes you to grow more neurons on average is best when combined with genes that predispose you to have a big skull, but actually gives you iq reducing mental illness if poor nutrition or being born female gives you a small head.

Right, LLM writing is all about preference, but I find the Chinese models relatively witty.

I don't have a Twitter account, and I don't go out of my way to follow twitter e-celbrities.

Maybe you can help me out here. What's this "Hanania" guy's deal?

Everything I see about him here on the motte seems to suggest that his entire schtick can be reduced to "poor people are gross moral failures and I'm clearly not poor. Are you poor? Are you a gross moral failure?"

Am I missing something here?

Gary Marcus failing to beat the stopped clock benchmark of being right at least twice in a day:

https://x.com/scaling01/status/1946528532772909415