domain:natesilver.net
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1d ago
LLM companies are desperately fighting to move up the value chain, they all want to sell their models as equivalent in performance to PhD candidates, or independent agents capable of doing high value knowledge work.
I donno man. How much value is there really here? Unless you just let'r rip and see what happens, all those LLMs doing PhD level knowledge work will need to be overseen still by PhD level knowledge workers to check for veracity and hallucinations. It runs into a bit of the "How does a stupid writer depict a smart villain" problem.
And as for the companies that decide let'r rip without adequate oversight, well... I can't venture to guess. Really playing with fire there.
There is probably perfectly adequate shareholder value in getting a billion lonely midwits to pay $10/month rising to $inf/month in the way of all silicon valley service models, and keeping them hooked with the LLM equivalent of tokenized language loot boxes. I'd wager its even the more significant hill to climb for shareholder value.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
1d ago
Why is this comment +10,-16 for merely making an argument?
Perhaps the rhetorical flourish at the end?
Or this one? +10,-12
Perhaps the jeering paragraph objecting to "fun" being a reason for things to be legal, or the tiresome cars/guns comparison?
Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Does not even get small meaningless negative reinforcement via stupid internet points.
No, a downvote is not a bullet, and an argument against bullets is not an argument against "small meaningless negative reinforcement via stupid internet points".
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
1d ago
Regarding anthropic, reread Nostalgebraist's post.
Revisiting this conversation with more time in hand, I'm not sure which post you're talking about. RITOT has nothing to do with Anthropic as far as I can tell, and Google seems to turn up this:
https://www.tumblr.com/nostalgebraist/778409187704193024/anthropics-stated-ai-timelines-seem-wildly
Which doesn't seem to be a criticism of Anthropic's research, just a claim that their timelines are too aggressive.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
1d ago
I'm running about 80 miles/a week these days
Impressive. That's a lot. I'm at half that, and with a lifting schedule too, I go to bed feeling beat up most days.
Corvos
1d ago
The total salary of all therapists is surely far higher than the combined salary of all nuclear engineers? I tried to find aggregate employment figures and failed.
Broadly, there are huge amounts of people who are very lonely and unable realistically to fix that. I think the value from providing a real-enough friend to them would be vastly more valuable in both utilitarian and monetary terms than almost anything else. I hope of course to move to an open, almost-free solution.
celluloid_dream
1d ago
Fair point. That response was less than maximally pro-gun, but it is 1. is mostly on the topic of suicide, 2. still pretty lukewarm, and comes with a healthy amount of throat clearing: "I'm not arguing that this, in itself, is a persuasive argument in favour of banning guns, and can see the merits of both sides of the debate (particularly the "guns as a check against encroaching authoritarianism" argument advanced by many, including Handwaving Freakoutery, formerly of these parts)".
Why is this comment +10,-16 for merely making an argument? Or this one? +10,-12
Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Does not even get small meaningless negative reinforcement via stupid internet points.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
It's good to have you lay out the evidence behind your claims, better late than never. I must note that that's not the point, both me and Nara are asking you to submit such evidence proactively, and not after moderation.
You do not need citations for saying that water is wet. But if you are making an inflammatory claim (and someone arguing that they didn't think it was inflammatory is not much of an excuse), then you need to show up and hand receipts before being accosted by security.
JTarrou
1d ago
Yes, SIG would like very much if people all said the 320 was fine. That's what your link says. It's just rewritten SIG ad copy, as is obvious from the very first sentence:
New Hampshire gun-maker Sig Sauer is asking two federal agencies — the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security — to vouch for its embattled P320 pistol.
The entreaty comes as part of a lengthy statement Sig Sauer released July 29 as it continues to push back against allegations — some in the form of lawsuits — that the P320 is unsafe.
The number of terrible takes on AI on this forum often seem to outweigh even the good ones.
Have you considered that you might be the one whose takes are the terrible ones because LLMs match your desires and thus validate your pre-existing pro-AI future biases? From an outside perspective everything I’ve seen you write about LLMs matches the sterotypical uncritical fanboys to the tee. Always quick to criticize anyone who disagrees with you on LLM, largely ignoring the problems, no particular domain expertise in the technology (beyond as an end user) and never offering any sort of hard proof. IOW, you don't come across as either a reliable or a good faith commenter when it comes to LLMs or AI.
Tree
1d ago
As you wish.
evidence points towards an advantage of men over women in fluid intelligence (Gf) [2]–[4], but also in crystallized intelligence (Gc) and general knowledge [5], [6].
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4210204/
Women’s ways of knowing, the seminal work on women’s development theory, by women:
The first 3(lowest) among the 5 types of women’s ways of knowing are:
The Silence: These women viewed themselves as being incapable of knowing or thinking, appeared to conduct little or no internal dialogue and generally felt no sense of connection with others.
Received Knowledge: Received knowledge describes the epistemological position in which women in the study perceived knowledge as a set of absolute truths received from infallible authorities. Received knowers tended to find disagreement, paradox or ambiguity intolerable since these violated the black-and-white absolutist nature of knowledge .
Subjective knowers rely on their own subjective thoughts, feelings and experiences for knowledge and truth - the "infallible gut" as Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule refer to it. Along with the nascent discovery of the inner voice, subjective knowers showed a general distrust of analysis and logical reasoning and did not see value in considering the weight of evidence in evaluating knowledge. Instead, they considered knowledge and truth to be inherently personal and subjective, to be experienced rather than intellectualized.[1] Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule state that subjective knowers often block out conflicting opinions of others, but may seek the support and affirmation of those in agreement.[1] The authors note that half of the women in their study occupied this position, but that they were spread across the full range of ages.[
Much like Kohlberg, who found that women were on average, stuck at a lower level of moral development than men, they found that most women are epistemiologically stuck in early adolescence (the infallible gut people):
Relationship to Perry's cognitive development theory
Subjective knowledge is similar to Perry's multiplicity, in that both emphasize personal intuition and truth.[4] However, Perry identified the typical age of the transition to multiplicity as early adolescence, while the women in the above study exhibited this transition over the whole spectrum of ages studied.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I don't know if I buy that it's just "simping". Organic trends come and go, they aren't usually capable of maintaining world-spanning activist infrastructure for decades on end.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
1d ago
No, intelligence, how the brain operates and the interconnected nature of overall intelligence in human beings is quite complex. A lot of decision making apparently isn't done just by the brain.
Our limited understanding and an even more limited implementation is not likely to lead to even more intelligent synthetic beings on the current path. AI soyjacking is the only acceptable religious belief in rat spheres.
DelendaEst
1d ago
Asking for a ranked list sounds like a great solution, sometimes it is wrong even when its not being sycophantic (which I don't mind its not magic and the information I am giving as someone with no clue what I am doing is imperfect at best) so that sounds like a two birds one stone kind of fix.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if europhiles in the UK would rather be part of Macron's vision of "Strategic autonomy" than America's junior partner when it comes to foreign policy
Not a chance. Joining AUKUS was a giant middle finger to the French (who had been supplying the original contract) and a very visible symbol of allegiance to America over European integration. This is why DeGaulle tried to keep us out of the EU, he figured Anglo instincts would come to the fore.
preferring neutrality in the case of a Taiwan-based active conflict)
Neutrality maybe. But definitely not taking the Chinese side. More like our position re: Ukraine.
The forthcoming UK recognition of Palestine is I think an example that leftist anti-western opinion definitely has a role in UK policy-making.
I was going to have a sentence excluding that specifically but I mean global power politics between the big players. Being pro-Palestine is different, it’s going against US desires but it’s not siding with Russia or China except incidentally.
roystgnr
1d ago
Do the votes look like they track response quality
Partially.
or do we simply have a large American gun-owning population that vehemently downvotes anything that might be the slightest bit critical of their god-given constitutional right
Before you had us look, I would have assumed so (for a loose enough definition of "large") ... but now that I look, I note that "In the counterfactual world where the US had banned guns ten years ago, I don't think that all of the people who killed themselves with firearms in our world would have instead hanged or drowned themselves. In fact, I don't think that even 50 or 25% of them would have done so." is currently sitting at +17, -0.
I've definitely seen too many downvotes here, including in that thread, that appear to be more for disagreement than for low quality, but it's more subtle and less voluminous than you're suggesting.
faceh
1d ago
DAMNIT.
I'm really not trying to make that my 'thing.' Gotta write about some obscure Floridian political fight or something to make up for it.
oh well.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
1d ago
Whatever you're doing, you're doing it right, because I see nothing but a dozen AAQCs in the mod log.
faceh
1d ago
Hey now, I'm mostly cynical about the larger issue of intersex relations.
I'm quite the fan of women in the abstract and many specific ones that I like a lot, and are great people.
The stats inform my behavior and proposed solutions, but cynicism is reserved for the larger system that I think is sucking everyone dry, and not in the fun way.
FtSoA
1d ago
So, in your view:
- Israel is lying about having achieved air superiority over Iran. Even though a number of countries, notably Iran and the U.S., would know the truth and Israel would risk leaks.
- Israel is lying about having dropped any munitions over the target. Even though a number of countries, notably Iran and the U.S., would know the truth and Israel would risk leaks.
- Israel is lying that they crippled Iran's ballistic missile production and destroyed 80% of the launchers. Even though a number of countries, notably Iran and the U.S., would know the truth and Israel would risk leaks.
- Iran (and Hezbollah) were not defeated; they chose not to deliver further damage to Israel. The country they have sworn to destroy.
The IDF is just doing these photos with various JDAMs and whatnot linked in this article for pure propaganda? Why?
We know why Iran would lie about having shot down an F-35 or two. But why would Israel need to lie about dropping JDAMs vs. blasting things with ALBMs? They certainly were blowing things up.
Hitting Mashhad proves that they didn't control Iranian airspace
You can argue that it doesn't prove the IAF did; you can't argue it proves they didn't. Elementary logic.
Here's a funny (bit)[https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/tensions-erupt-did-israel-use-azerbaijani-airspace-to-strike-deep-into-iran/]:
Iran’s intelligence circles argue that its strategic allies, including Armenia, Turkmenistan and Russia, would not permit such corridor access, leaving Azerbaijan as the only feasible conduit for Israeli fighter jets and drones to operate deep behind Iranian lines. In Tehran and Karaj, damage assessments indicate that multiple sites were struck from vectors consistent with air routes crossing the Caspian, while Iranian air defence infrastructure in Kermanshah and Isfahan was reportedly neutralised by precision standoff munitions launched from Iraqi airspace.
Yet they somehow made even less progress on the ground compared with 2006 despite all this.
What was their goal this time? Was it the same as 2006? (No.)
They hit took out a lot of military leaders assembled for exercises but as far as I know nobody confirmed that it was an actual command bunker or even that the IAF was responsible.
For "exercises"? AYFKMRN? We know who the dead generals are.
Most of the confirmed assassinations have been ascribed to Mossad drones, Mossad Spike missiles and the occasional Mossad bomb, all of which could plausibly have taken out the assembled generals just as easily as an IAF bomb.
Well at least you're willing to acknowledge one part of the Israeli government did a good job.
Why weren't they able to replicate the pace of assassinations for the remainder of the war,
Because the Iranians got a lot more cautious about things. Obviously. Targeting people is hard when they know they're being actively targeted.
blowing up the TV broadcaster would cause the Iranian people to spontaneously rise up
This is not what "spontaneously" means. Quite the opposite.
Trump decides to call off Israel for no reason
No reason? He has a whole wing of advisors who wanted the U.S. to take no part. As far as Trump is concerned, the nuclear program was bombed, so mission accomplished.
Israel decides to obey Trump despite having previously had no problem disobeying him regarding Lebanon and Syria
Those are not the same situations. (After all, you seem to believe Iran remains a significant threat to Israel right now.) Bibi will only test Trump so much.
Today, Iran is openly defying Trump by continuing nuclear enrichment and Trump is threatening to restart strikes, yet Israel is still doing nothing to Iran while continuing to bomb Syria in active defiance of Trump. I dunno, I still think the explanation that he was saving Israel rather than Iran makes more sense.
The Iranians have formed a war council because they expect the war to recommence. Israel is, one presumes, presently plotting for such an eventuality. As they did that last time.
On the flipside there's no reason why Trump or Israel would cut a favourable truce with their worst enemy at their weakest only to impotently threaten to return to fighting by the end of the month because said worst enemy continues to defy them.
Trump is not a particularly rational actor. He is wildly inconsistent and easily influenced by his advisors; who often have conflicting views. Many people predict great catastrophe if the regime falls. So if it's defanged why not let it live. I think this is wrong, but I know why they think it.
Again, no truce was "cut." Nothing was negotiated. It's a de facto ceasefire.
Do you deny that Iran's economy was massively impacted during the conflict because of the reliance on the oil industry, or is that also propaganda?
Had the conflict continued roughly as it had, who was going to run out of money first?
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
It's a process for everyone. Demoralization is real. And everyone is trying to improve all the time, and there's just too much to know and master. There's a real balance between maintaining the standards of a community and maintaining the morale of individual members of a community - you do need enough high quality not to run off people who have actually mastered some things. And yet there really is very little to be gained by ripping bad work to shreds, in the usual case.
Above standards, there is politics, and there is tribalism. Take the Culture War Thread, for example. "This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here."
Is that how we act here? Look at the gun discussion from last week. Do the votes look like they track response quality (i.e. of argument), or do we simply have a large American gun-owning population that vehemently downvotes anything that might be the slightest bit critical of their god-given constitutional right? And of course, it's not just the voting. I regularly see people with minority views accused of being trolls, of being alts, etc. etc.
This is a rising trend on the broader internet. Even going into a reddit thread trying to post some polite, neutral information, not even taking a side draws downvotes because it pattern-matches a tribe. It didn't used to be like that. Again, this is politics and tribalism, not standards or correctness.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
1d ago
Hmm.. I'm not sure what to do in that situation. My best guess is to plead utter uncertainty, and ask it to formulate the most probable issues in the order of likelihood.
faceh
1d ago
You pretty much nailed it, impressively accurate for an 'outsider.'
The one achievement of the apps is getting the average guy to finance (both paying for apps, and paying for dates) the whole operation so that average women can sleep with a variety of hot guys who will never, ever commit, and the hot guys don't have to invest much capital, so it is cheaper for them than finding hookers.
And for the women, its definitely a 'decision paralysis' or 'paradox of choice' situation. You've got 50 matches on any given day, and you need to pick one or two to go on dates with, but of course doing that is possibly locking you out from choosing the ideal match... if such a thing exists, so its easier to just not pick and let men do the whole song and dance to hold your attention.
Its horribly toxic, and I worry that the younger kids just have never known anything different, so its 'normal.' When it really, really should not be normal.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
1d ago
I know, but it's one of the few things in their worldview that I agree with.
I have considered it, and found that hypothesis lacking. Perhaps it would be helpful if you advanced an argument in your favor that isn't just "hmm.. did you consider you could be wrong?"
Buddy, to put it bluntly, if I believed I was wrong then I would adjust in the direction of being... less wrong?
Also, have you noticed that I'm hardly alone? I have no formal credentials to lean on, I just read research papers in my free time and think about things on a slightly more than superficial level. While we have topics of disagreement, I can count several people like @rae, @DaseindustriesLtd, @SnapDragon, @faul_sname or @RandomRanger in my corner. That's just people who hang around here. In the general AI-risk is a serious concern category, there's everyone from Nobel Prize winners to billionaires.
To think that I'm uncritical of LLMs? A man could weep. I've written dozens of pages about the issues with LLMs. I only strive to be a fair critic. If you have actual arguments, I will hear them.
More options
Context Copy link