HervalFreire

https://www.genesisrecovery.com/drug-addiction-and-homelessn...

One thing about both the studies you reference and studies I reference is that they're both correlative. Not causative. A causative study is virtually impossible here.

One possible causal chain: Drug use leads to less money, leads to no house in high cost areas.

Another possible chain: No money, leads to no house in high cost areas, leads to drug use.

There's actually infinite possibilities because the causal source can come from an unknown variable that we didn't reference here.

My best guess though is that it's both.

"The death rate from fentanyl increased 10-fold from 2015 to 2019. The rate of prescription opioid deaths fell 30% from 2011 to 2019."

"The number of amphetamine-related emergency department visits increased nearly 50% between 2018 and 2020. The number of non-heroin-related opioid ED visits more than doubled in the same period."

Doesn't look like minor changes to me.

https://www.chcf.org/publication/2022-edition-substance-use-...

I mean open your eyes too. In Socal and NorCal many areas have becime covered with people living on the streets. This is partly housing and drugs

I learned very little on the job. It was mostly things outside the job.

Has this ever been done? Excluding VTOL aircrafts of course.

I mean yeah sure it's cool that something can do all your work for you but as your boss, I wouldn't need you then would I? I mean this aspect of economic impact must be considered along with the convenient fact that it makes your job easier.

I also find it hard to see how you're unimpressed? I mean yeah it's not as "impressive" as a human but but it's certainly impressive in terms of progress and potential future progress given such results have never been seen before.

Your responses to me in other threads were fucking rude and as a result I now literally hate you. So why bother, just leave and save everyone the trouble.

Nobody cares for your opinion if you're going to continuously insult everyone you fucking talk to.

Everything in the universe has a set of rules governing it's existence. To understand something means that one can create novel answers to questions about something. Those answers however must make sense with the rules that govern the "something" at hand. This answer must also not be "memorized" in some sort of giant query-response lookup table.

That's it. That's what I'm saying.

For example if I ask chatGPT to emulate a bash terminal and create a new directory it can do so indicating it understands how a filesystem works. That is understanding.

I never said that LLMs are human. However understanding things is an aspect of being human and chatGPT captures a part of that aspect.

Yes. You are pointing out various flaws which again is quite obvious. Everyone knows of the inconsistencies with these LLMs.

Too this I again say that the LLM understands some things and doesn't understand other things, its understanding of things is inconsistent and incomplete.

The only thing needed to prove understanding is to show chatGPT building something that can only be built by pure understanding. If you see one instance of this, then it's sufficient to say on some level chatGPT understands aspects of your query rather then doing a trivial query-response correlation you're implying is possible here.

Let's examine the full structure that was built here:

chatGPT was running an emulated terminal with an emulated internet with an emulated chatGPT with an emulated terminal.

It's basically a recursive model of a computer and the internet relative to itself. There is literally no exact copy of this anywhere in it's training data. chatGPT had to construct this model via correctly composing multiple concepts together.

The composition cannot occur correctly without chatGPT understanding how the components compose.

It's kind of strange that this was ignored. It was the main point of the example. I didn't emphasize this because this structure is obviously the heart of the argument if the article was read to the end.

Literally to generate the output of the final example chatGPT has to parse bash input execute the command over a simulated internet onto a simulated version of himself and again parse the bash sub command. It has a internal stack that it must use to put all the output together into a final json output.

So while It is possible for simple individual commands to be correlated with similar training data... for the highly recursive command on the final prompt.... There is zero explanation for how chatGPT can pick this up off of some correlation. There is virtually no identical structure on the internet... It has to understand the users query and compose the response from different components. That is the only explanation left.

If they fear the AI owners attack the owners directly. Don't attack reality itself and say the AIs are just stochastic parrots and there's no risk to jobs at all.

And people who have to bend their perception of reality to protect a vested interest. For software engineers the skills and attributes we take pride in are our software craft and our intelligence. So it's normal to see that the attacks on AI are especially vicious on HN.

I'd say the division is about 50 50.

Gpt4 will not replace us. But it's a herald for something that will. That is reality.

Put your real name and email address in your profile and respond with your full identity exposed. I want to see how history plays out. Then I can go back on these old threads to see who was actually wrong.

Who were the idiots against the reality of global warming? The people who so fervently used every excuse to deny the reality of an impending catastrophe?

There is no difference between those people and the people who consistently attempt to use every avenue available to attack the abilities of AI. These aren't rational people. They are people with an agenda that pushes them to modify their perception of reality around them to fit that agenda. That agenda is fear. Fear that a machine can surpass us and replace the software craft we have spent years honing.

My advice to you is to open up your mind a bit.

Heck I put my full identity and contact info in my profile. I stand by my views without hiding behind a throwaway account. If history proves me wrong the record is here for everyone to see.

Not only that.. your argument in itself is self defeating EVEN if "constrained games" WAS a factor. A machine learning system beat the best human humanity had to offer at a game that is fucking constrained? Literally, the more pathetically simplistic the task the worse Humans perform against an AI. That's the overall logic of your genius argument.

I think one thing is proven by your response. That basically certain people are just not smart or intelligent. You're pretty much below average. This isn't an insult. I'm just pointing out the truth here. I'm sorry but you can't even come up with a coherent argument against the "rantings of a fraudster." Consider measuring your IQ to verify.

In fact given the complexity of reality we may never ever have a formal model for medicine and as such we most likely will have to forever rely on asymmetrical nature of science.

Computing is bounded in a simulated universe axioms and logic. Computers are in actuality a part of reality but we try to use them as if they are seperate universes of pure logic and math games. To say that something has "some theoretical basis" is a very precise statement in computing because unlike medicine it is VERY possible for entities in such a bounded system to have a complete formal theory.

The problem is the Zero one infinity rule is not such a thing. The statement to say it has "some theoretical basis" is therefore completely false. Especially given the fact that in this thread there are a bunch of counter examples and I myself don't fully agree with it. How do you know this Zero one infinite rule is not just some form of mercury in disguise?

My disagreement, however, is NOT the point. The point is that this rule currently has ZERO theoretical basis. Additionally given the existence of counter examples, it likely will ALWAYS have zero theoretical basis. I don't completely deny the validity of anecdotal evidence, but, again, the claim made initially by the GP is false.

A gift isn't a fair trade. That's why a gift is not called a fair trade. There's such phrase: "fair gift".

> You don't get to tell me what I do with my resources, and my labor and time has no intrinsic value.

I never did tell you what to do with your time and resources. Why would you assume I did something that never occurred? I think your emotions are saying this.

>The CEO in the description obviously wants to make open source developers build _something new_. That is, something they have not decided to gift to the community already.

No exploitation doesn't just involve that. Even taking something already built without a fair trade is still exploitation.

>We can argue semantics of the word exploit, of which I think you're being ridiculous, but even with your definition the situations are different.

Not only CAN we argue this, we are arguing this. This is the central point. And it's not about MY definition either. It's about the colloquial definition of the word exploit. If you google it, you will see that I am right.

There is no different "situation" here. You're simply offended by the word "exploit" because you have preconceived connotations attached to it. I don't have any skin in the game, I don't have to adjust vocabulary or my interpretation of the English language to justify my place in the world.

That CEO is strategically making the best decision by "exploiting" open source. Anyone following that plan is also making the most cost efficient strategic move. He may be acting like an ass about it, but logically his strategy is correct. That's just reality.

That matters more to engineers then true understanding. So a lot of engineers end up trying to understand it and when they fail they easily move on to other things because it's not required knowledge for their job.

I wouldn't call it "another level of abstraction"

It's more of a "fundamental theory of abstraction". Once it clicks you can see it. And you will see all the design patterns and abstractions you see in books like the gof are the ones that are "arbitrary layers of abstraction"

That's why a lot of programmers want to incorporate the concepts into their languages. Because once it clicks you realize that all other abstractions (especially design patterns in oop) are flawed and wrong.

You start to see cracks and broken abstractions everywhere. This is not just another GoF design patterns thing. It's fundamental.

But the thing is it's so hard usually if you get it, you'll be living in a world where most people don't get it. So people will have trouble understanding you.

If you don't ever get it, I would view it as a layman would view quantum physics or general relativity. You know it's a more fundamental description of the universe but you just can't grasp it.

When you use open source you are exploiting a resource as there is no fair trade. It's not a crime nor is it immoral but because no fair trade occured it is technically an exploitation.

No CEO tricked open source developers. Open source developers create open source as a charity to society that's all. They aren't tricked. They willingly choose to allow others to exploit their goodwill as a resource. Many people choose not to exploit them and donate money for their efforts, but most don't.

Put it this way. People can be aware they are being exploited and people can be unaware that they are exploiting others. Knowledge of the action is independent of the action of exploitation.

We see paradoxical trends and trends that are not. It just means the paradox can sometimes occur it does not mean the paradox is a general rule.

This paradox only occurs if every resource is abundant. We tend to see it a lot (especially in the last decade) because of the easy money policies by the Fed in the last decade or so. Following your example, if we have unlimited money and gas prices are cheap, we buy more gas. But with limited money, when gas gets cheaper, we don't buy more gas, we usually allocate more money for more essentials.

The scenario with a bankruptcy is largely parallel to what we're seeing recently with interest rates and the lay offs. Free money is being tightened. With limited money the paradox no longer functions. Big tech is not going to hire people to write existing software they can get on the open source world, so they let go of a bunch of people.

You can literally see the two curves correlate ever since interest rates started to rise... Open source projects are going up right now while lay offs are also increasing... violating the paradox.

It's obvious if your productivity increases because of AI it diminishes the need of another person's productivity. You give everyone more AI tools you could increase productivity to levels beyond what is necessary. If some productivity isn't necessary it's laid off. Simple logic.

It's quite obvious. It's just people have a fascination and love for this technology such that they need to construct a delusional narrative that validates their love and validates their moral imperatives. But deep down they know, because it's really really straightforward the consequences of any tool like this.

100 percent: open source has contributed to less demand. It's the only logical conclusion.

The thing is that supply is so low that even with less demand it still outstrips supply.

Here's the the thing we should be cautious about. Times change. Technology changes, the culture changes and interest rates also change. Demand may not always outstrip supply.

If you look through this very thread there are people talking about anecdotal experiences verifying the opposite effect.

What theoretical merit? It sounds like a completely made up rule of thumb based off of a persons anecdotal experience.

chatGPT and dall-e put fuel on the fire. Interest has spiked and additionally the industry and academia is matching the trend with an equivalent refocus of research efforts.

No exaggeration here to say "we don't know what will happen"

The AI sledge hammer is as good as we are going to get in paradigm shifts for a while given how we are at the top of an s-curve for development. Additionally we're only really seeing the first decade. When the computer was discovered was it ubiquitous in a decade? No. In fact it was largely a sort of useless academic research project for the longest time.