Also if the CEO of target decides he really doesn’t like a popular shirt and is able to force everyone to only shop at target, then he can come a lot closer to snuffing out the existence of that shirt.

The water tasted like damp basement! Oddly enough, it was a kinda pleasant flavour.

I mean, even if they had to pay in the event of self-afflicted injury, that first quote is fraud on its own, though I bet the huge payout is also a part of it.

It’s because they are horrible at problem solving and creativity. They are based on word association from training purely on text. The technical singularity will need to innovate on its own so that it can improve the hardware it runs on and its software.

Even though github copilot has impressed me by implementing a 3 file Python script from scratch to finish such that I barely wrote any code, I had to hold its hand the entire way and give it very specific instructions about every function as we added the pieces one by one to build it up. And even then, it would get parts I failed to specify completely wrong and initially implemented things in a very inefficient way.

There are fundamental things that the technical singularity needs that today’s LLMs lack entirely. I think the changes that would be required to get there will also change them from LLMs into something else. The training is a part of it, but fundamentally, LLMs are massive word association engines. Words (or vectors translated to and from words) are their entire world and they can only describe things with those words because it was trained on other people doing that.

I don’t hate AI or LLMs. As much as it might mess up civilization as we know it, I’d like to see the technological singularity during my lifetime, though I think the fixation on LLMs will do more to delay than realize that.

I just think that there’s a lot of people fooled by their conversational capability into thinking they are more than what they are and using the fact that these models are massive with billions or trillions of weighs that the data is encoded into and no one understands how they work to the point of being able to definitively say “this is why it suggested glue as a pizza topping” to put whether or not it approaches AGI in a grey zone.

I’ll agree though that it was maybe too much to say they don’t have knowledge. “Having knowledge” is a pretty abstract and hard to define thing itself, though I’m also not sure it directly translates to having intelligence (which is also poorly defined tbf). Like one could argue that encyclopedias have knowledge, but they don’t have intelligence. And I’d argue that LLMs are more akin to encyclopedias than how we operate (though maybe more like a chatbot dictionairy that pretends to be an encyclopedia).

Calling the errors “hallucinations” is kinda misleading because it implies there’s regular real knowledge but false stuff gets mixed in. That’s not how LLMs work.

LLMs are purely about word associations to other words. It’s just massive enough that it can add a lot of context to those associations and seem conversational about almost any topic, but it has no depth to any of it. Where it seems like it does is just because the contexts of its training got very specific, which is bound to happen when it’s trained on every online conversation its owners (or rather people hired by people hired by its owners) could get their hands on.

All it does is, given the set of tokens provided and already predicted, plus a bit of randomness, what is the most likely token to come next, then repeat until it predicts an “end” token.

Earlier on when using LLMs, I’d ask it about how it did things or why it would fail at certain things. ChatGPT would answer, but only because it was trained on text that explained what it could and couldn’t do. Its capabilities don’t actually include any self-reflection or self-understanding, or any understanding at all. The text it was trained on doesn’t even have to reflect how it really works.

Those aren’t pens.

This guy knows how to party!

Or maybe you get gravel in the same sense that someone could own Jupiter or a star. “You now own all the gravel in that quary!” But it doesn’t inform the workers of that fact, or the officials who still rely on whatever paperwork was filled out by the agents of the guy who paid them to ensure the quary belongs to his corporation’s corporation. The whole idea of ownership is pretty abstract in the first place.

Could be that every pill just means that, under the jurisdiction of the entity who made the pills, you are legally allowed to do what the pills claim, though you need to figure out the rest from there, and people from other jurisdictions are able to disagree even if you do figure out the how.

Hell, forget motorbikes, even bicycles would make it hard to justify horse costs. And I bet they are superior for range and speed (average, at least, not so sure about max, and obviously it requires a rider in good enough shape, but I think you’ll get there if you ride regularly, assuming no disabilities).

From what I recall horses require: * Training on how to ride a horse

Picturing you riding a horse that is riding another horse. Extended range upgrade?

Though on a serious note, there’s also the horse itself and its training (to be ridden and not freak out about things, training it to ride another horse or series of horses optional).

Hey you should have some pride in your dad, being able to keep going longer than a movie!