domain:reddit.com
Botond173
16hr ago
And let’s also keep in mind that all of this is happening at the same time when rates of obesity, mental illness, hysteria, violence, alcoholism, antidepressant and prescription pill abuse and drug use in general have been rising among Western women for a long time.
functor
16hr ago
The differential between Palestine and Israel in terms of military capacity is greater than ever:
Far from it. Missile tech and drone tech is more dispersed than ever. Israel can't even occupy an area smaller than a municipality in almost two years even with exceptional brutality. Israel is a small country stuck in the same quagmire as South Vietnam, French Algeria or Rhodesia. They are never going to be a functioning country and permanently stuck in a state of emergency.
It is chutzpah of the highest order to rely on the charity and good will of your enemy to feed your people.
Expecting an enemy not to commit war crimes is normal. Israels behaviour has taught a sizeable portion of goyim what jewish mindset is and that the jewish view on this is fundamentally incompatible with a western mindset. The winning Palestinian strategy is to show the world what a bunch of religious fundamentalists on the west bank are actually like. There is a reason why western civilization despised these people for 2000 years and having them quoting biblical genocides while massacring starving Christians is an excellent way to bring back the west to our historical view of them.
Millions of Afghans died in the 80s. Millions of Vietnamese died, France was brutal against the Algerians. Being brutal against the locals is not an effective way to win. The British counter insurgency in Northern Ireland was far more effective.
Botond173
16hr ago
The existence of this, and of the "Are we dating the same guy" Facebook groups, is further perfect proof that the 80/20 rule is true.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
16hr ago
And this, this is why I have no interest in anime.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
16hr ago
In the interest of full disclosure, I've sat down to write a reply to you three times now, and the previous two time I ended up figuratively crumpling the reply up and throwing it away in frustration because I'm getting the impression that you didn't actually read or try to engage with my post so much as just skimmed it looking for nits to pick.
You your whole post is littered with asides like.
Calling them Large "Language" Models is a gross misnomer these days, when they accept not just text, but audio, images, video or even protein structure
When I had very explicitly stated "Now in actual practice these tokens can be anything, an image, an audio-clip, or a snippet of computer code, but for the purposes of this discussion I am going to assume that we are working with words/text."
and
Operations are not limited to dot products
When I had very explicitly stated that "Any operation that you might do on a vector" could now be done on the token. So on and so forth.
You go on a whole tangent trying to explain how I need to understand that people do not interact with the LLM directly when I very explicitly stated that "most publicly available "LLMs" are not just an LLM. They are an LLM plus an additional interface layer that sits between the user and the actual language model."
And trust me, I am fully aware that “Mary has 2 children” and “Mary has 1024 children” are empirically distinct claims, I don't need you to point that out to me. The point of the example was not to claim that the numbers 2 and 1024 are literally indistinguishable from each other. The point was to illustrate a common failure mode and explain why LLMs often struggle with relatively simple tasks like counting.
With that out of the way...
I find your fish vs birds and judging whales by their ability to climb trees examples unconvincing for the same reasons as @Amadan below.
In the post that the OP started as a reply to, you accused society of "moving the goalposts" on AI progress but I disagree.
If you ask the average American about "AGI" or "AI Risk" what are the images that come to mind? It's Skynet from The Terminator, Cortana from Halo, Data from Star Trek TNG, the Replicants from Blade Runner, or GLaDOS from Portal. They or something like them is where goalposts are and have been for the last century. What do they all have in common? Agentic behavior. It's what makes them characters and not just another computer. So yes my definition of intelligence relies heavily on agentic behavior, and that is by design. Whether you are trying to build a full on robot out of Asimov, or something substantially less ambitious like a self-driving car or autonomous package sorter, agentic behavior is going to a key deliverable. Accordingly I would dismiss any definition of "intelligence" (artificial or otherwise) that did not include it as unfit for purpose.
You say things like "Saying an LLM is unintelligent because its weights are frozen is like saying a book is unintelligent." and I actually agree with that statement. No a book is not "intelligent" and neither is a pocket calculator, even if it is demonstrably better at arithmetic than any human.
You keep claiming that my definition of "intelligence" is inadequate and hobbling my understanding but I get the impression that I have a much clearer idea of both where we are and where we are trying to get to in spite of this.
If you think you have a better solution present it, as I said one of the first steps to solving any practical engineering problem is to determine your parameters.
Moving on, the claim that LLMs "know" when they are lying or hallucinating is something you and I have discussed before. The claim manages to be trivially true while providing no actionable solution for reasons already described in the OP.
The LessWrong stuff is not even wrong, and I find it astonishingly naive of you to assume that the simple human preference for truth is any match for Lorem Epsom. To volley one of your own favorite retorts back at you. "Have you met people".
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
17hr ago
Why are lawyers so expensive?
- Is the supply of lawyers artificially constrained?
- Is lawyering so hard that the supply of acceptable quality lawyers is naturally constrained?
- Is the influence of lawyers on the outcome of a trial so outsized that parties want to pay insane premiums to maximize the probability their lawyer is the better one?
All these would require completely different solutions.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
17hr ago
Maybe. I tend to remember certain things but I don't remember much in this case. I have him as a family man but picturing "family man" isn't a visual image.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
17hr ago
Again this isn't me being Kreskin it's just the vibe I get when I read the person's posts.
Early 30s Russian male, keep your hair short, scruff which could be beardy but you don't let it get too far, pale eyes, high forehead. If I had to pick a color it'd be orange. That's probably because of the word sun.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
17hr ago
You should get her a gym membership and spike a lot of the food you guys eat with olive oil. These two should help her get a higher appetite and also sneak in extra calories. This is a terrible spot to be in. Being thin is not healthy. Confront her, you are her boyfriend.
The current beauty standard is a historic anomaly that should be discarded. The aspirational body type for a girl today is slowly changing, and it's a good sign. She may need counselling. Props to you for intervening. Put your foot down.
Botond173
17hr ago
OliveTapenade
17hr ago
The thing traditionalists don't seem to have a satisfying answer for is "why is gayness uniquely bad"? Why does it uniquely fuel identarianism, if it does? When I consider the question of "if it wasn't this, would it have been something else?", I think back on all the times it has been something else, and note that there's nothing unique/special to non-straightness that lends itself to being used as a weapon in this way.
I'm a little confused here.
Firstly, social conservatives and particularly conservative Christians do have quite detailed answers for why same-sex relations are morally bad. If you aren't satisfied, presumably you either don't find those answers convincing, or you aren't aware of them, but I suppose neither strikes me as a particularly devastating criticism. Let's charitably assume that you are familiar with and unconvinced by, for instance, teleological arguments, or arguments from natural law. It's not clear to me why that in itself should be that concerning, particularly since my suggestion here is not "social conservatives are absolutely correct in everything they have asserted", but rather "social conservative predictions coming true is an opportunity to re-evaluate their earlier claims". Social conservative arguments around sexual morality might be only partially true, or might lead to some pragmatically true conclusion for the wrong reasons; in either case it would still be worthwhile to revisit their arguments and see what might be salvaged.
Secondly, social conservatives do not claim that same-sex relations are uniquely bad, and I don't know where you got that idea. Let's assume a traditionalist Christian approach here. That approach is that same-sex relations are one species within the wider category of sexual sin. The category of sexual immorality or porneia is quite a broad one, and the reasons why same-sex unions are bad (illicit, to be discouraged, sinful, whatever language you like) are substantially the same reasons why many other forms of sexual behaviour are bad (this is where progressives would get very angry at the comparison between homosexuality and various other paraphilias).
So I'm not sure I understand your retort here. Social conservatives have explained why same-sex relations are bad at great length, and they have not argued that same-sex relations are uniquely bad in a way that sets them apart from any other sexual immorality. What's left here? You don't find conservative arguments against same-sex relations convincing? Well, good for you, I suppose.
without ultimately falling back on some variation of "sin"- if they had a better argument, they'd be making it- then I judge they're no different than those who also have the same definition of sin but with the who and whom switched.
Replace the word 'sin' with 'bad', if you prefer. It doesn't make much practical difference. I'm often baffled by the way secular people seem to understand the word 'sin'.
Botond173
17hr ago
None of my half-dozen female cousins are whoring themselves out.
With all due respect, they probably won't have many problems keeping you in the dark about if they are indeed doing so after all.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
17hr ago
Great post OP. On the part about Yud and the people over at LessWrong, rationalists as a whole, a few weeks ago, I posted about the religious fervour many have for AI as the future sentient god. To me, it feels like the sci-fi idea of Skynet fills a god shaped hole in their hearts, and they cannot rationalise normal religious values on a mass scale.
For instance, neither Scott nor Yud are programmers; this is not to chide them, there are plenty of MMA scouts who get MMA better than top coaches or fighters, but these are few and far between, and they cannot affect the game as much as a live player can. If you have not worked on basic ML models and know about the way some of the architectures work, you can arrive at conclusions that stretch the current capabilities or your perception of them with a future where the improvements never cease, which to me seems ludicrous in a way.
Scott's 2027 post and Yuds AI ramblings seem extremely improbable, and given that I foresee an economic meltdown thanks to the corporate and vc greed behind the modern ai bubble, these statements would be used to question the non-AI things they post, things that are actually really good. We have a lot of trouble understanding intelligence, the human brain and how the two interact. There are systems within the body that make some of their own decisions iirc. It's truly fascinating as a field to study, the usage of AI propaganda like AGI is here by conning former YC president and Paul Graham's favourite human being, Sam Altman, and you will be jobless by every podcaster's favourite CEO, Dario Amodei, will be remembered. For anyone unaware of how low people can stoop, Austen Allred lost hundreds of millions by lying and PG still defends him, as he shifted his grift to learn programming via my bad bootcamp to learn AI via my bad bootcamp.
Theranos apparently did not get VC money, the Bay Area is where a lot of ratioanlists live, a lot of VCs are aware of the ideas, this must have had some role with the hype as rats are usually very smart, decent people. Regardless, this was a very well-worded out take on this issue. I have a rough outline that matches your worldview, though it is nowhere as precise, nor could I have presented it in a decent manner.
Botond173
18hr ago
I reckon there was some woman who made an unsuccessful attempt to enter local politics somewhere in New England who was revealed to be a camwhre. Either way, you touched on something that is important in this context. As time passes, women who become public figures for whatever reason will be increasingly likely to have a past as camwhres, Twitch th*ts, porners, escorts or OF models.
Botond173
18hr ago
Poland is likely the most religious country in the western world.
That largely applies to the older generations though who grew up at a time when religiosity was a covert expression of anti-communist sentiment, as the Church was suppressed and regulated through rather heavy-handed and pig-headed methods. The Polish youth, on the other hand, is just as irreligious as the youth in any other European country.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
18hr ago
The rat obsession with AI to me feels like smart people finding a new god and being too afraid to go back to older ones.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
19hr ago
It is chutzpah of the highest order to rely on the charity and good will of your enemy to feed your people.
It’ll be nice to see siege warfare make a return.
EvanTh
19hr ago
- Higher standards for filing a case to begin with
This could be a good thing, but I'm concerned about cases where people don't have the evidence up front and need to get it through discovery. People with very legitimate cases can end up in that situation.
- Another similar option, just ban someone from seeking further redress for a while (forever?) if they're found to be constantly abusing the courts.
This is a thing in some jurisdictions: recognized "vexatious litigants" have to get the court's pre-approval before filing further complaints. However, standards for being a vexatious litigant are high.
faceh
19hr ago
Yep. Once I read about the Analog Hole I realized that there is no possible scheme of DRM, access control, or privacy measures that can ensure anything you transmit digitally will be kept 'secret.'
Encryption gets you something resembling 'privacy' in the data being transmitted, but you CANNOT control what the end user does with it, and they can record and expose it at will if they're malicious in the slightest.
Combine that with dirt-cheap storage and its best to assume that most of your digital communications could resurface at any time. I try to hammer it into my legal assistants' heads: Don't put anything in an e-mail or chat message if you wouldn't want it to be read out loud in Court in front of a Judge later.
Attorney-client privilege is powerful but not invincible.
This gets REALLY interesting when discussing cryptocurrency and private keys.
We could do the discussion of voyeurism vs. exhibitionism and the "reasonable expectation of privacy" if that illuminated the issue more. I've actually got a claim to real expertise on such matters. Its almost beside the point, to me, though.
A year and a half ago I was 'forced' to learn that there are Congressional staffers who will film themselves having gay sex in the hallowed halls of the Senate. Assuming all involved consented to it, including the recording of the act, whatever, its not the most immoral thing done in that building by a long shot.
But can we agree it displays bad judgment? Disrespect? A lack of concern for others who might prefer not to stumble upon that sort of thing while just going about their day?
Granting that someone doing risky public sex is an even larger red flag, I can pass similar judgment on someone livestreaming sex acts to an anonymous audience. Don't do that unless you EXPECT it to possibly be recorded and possibly republished. You're not a 'victim' in the most stringent sense if someone takes a recording here and passes it around.
Maybe it makes me a prude (I'm not, I've pushed these sorts of boundaries before, but I also knew the precise definition of public indecency. so I could mitigate the legal risks.) but the type of person who does this stuff openly and often enough to get 'caught' is displaying a disregard for risks that probably hints at sociopathy. At least in the same way that a person who routinely drives 15 mph over the posted speed limit or hops on the shoulder of the road to dodge traffic is being anti-social. And filming the act is just compounding it.
Even if the rules are stupid or a bit arbitrary, the person who flouts them is still defecting in a way that makes them, to me, inherently less trustworthy, especially in positions of 'power' or authority.
Civilization is a game that only keeps going if people don't defect too often. And we certainly don't want to reward the defectors once the defection comes to light.
This recent article from WaPo via their local reporters is filled with anonymous and Unnamed General claims, so I take it with a grain of psyop salt, but its the first time I've seen a WaPo-like outlet assert that the food aid is important to Hamas operations with any specifics attached.
For instance, the officials said, Hamas seized at least 15 percent of some goods, like flour, and aid vouchers that international agencies had intended to provide to hungry Gazans...
A Gazan businessman said Hamas had imposed a tax of a least 20 percent on many goods. But the group also would take control of trucks carrying high-demand goods like flour, which could sell for up to $30 for a kilogram, and steal fuel meant for aid groups. Fuel supplies have produced high revenue for Hamas during the war, with the group both taxing and seizing fuel stored at gas stations for sale, said an Israeli military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in accordance with military protocol.
Taking control of the food distribution is the first yuge strategic decision that Israel has committed to following the invasion. If aid supplies are as critically important for Hamas as reason and reporting implies, then this is actually a plan to judge. Hamas can subsidize motivation with martyrdom, but even fervor requires sustenance. Assuming Israel doesn't starve everyone to death -- which I don't expect they will -- then the NGOs will cave before famine. They will submit to Israel's request to manage all the aid distribution and Israel takes full charge of the grain doles. I guess it is technically more accurate to call the GHF an American group sanctioned by Israel for aid distribution, but, is anyone under the impression there's any real difference in this case?
They are perfectly willing to watch Gaza starve until some entity comes out of the territory that they can negotiate with.
Which, until that happens, Gaza and the responsibilities associated with managing will increasingly fall to Israel. Until it finally becomes governance. Sure seems to me they wanted to avoid that outcome and may have even procrastinated decisions in hopes of an alternative. Israel left Gaza not 20 years ago. There's no winning. Not even if they defeat their enemies do they win.
At the moment Israelis may shrug callously at the idea of governing Gaza. Certainly not with any measure of goodwill or with any concern for headaches that are associated with that responsibility. Until I see the yet-to-be-seen viable alternative actually come into existence, then that's what the future looks like to me. Alternatively, Hamas has enough recruiting power to be fed by Israeli aid distribution while continuing to lead the forever war. I doubt it.
benmmurphy
20hr ago
Honestly, maybe we should remove defamation and have a free-for-all and consumers of media or other people's opinions have to just exercise caveat emptor. Part of the harm in defamation is because there are defamation laws. People are more trusting of another person's claim if they are putting money on the line. I guess the problem with ditching defamation laws is it might destroy the utility of useful information that was previously trusted.
Maybe Trump abusing defamation will produce a positive change. I guess its much harder to push a case against defamation when the victim is Alex Jones.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
20hr ago
I'm not finding evidence of this, though obviously it's possible I'm missing something. States mandate that the Holocaust be included in the educational curriculum, among myriad other topics, but I'm not finding anything specifying mandatory classes focused specifically on the Holocaust.
One real benefit of putting your arguments in writing (in the context of a sincere argument) is that it motivates this. This is a major reason to argue with people that you will disagree with—even if it is hard to convince others, the argument will add nuances to your view, and point out where your position is weaker in a way that is often fruitful in leading to a greater understanding.
More options
Context Copy link