MiloLeo

And yet I would expect that if it truly was generally good at thinking as you put it that it would be better at chess if you gave it a set of general rules/tactics and have it think through and look forward to decide its moves, but it is quite bad.

And yet you are speaking with the strongest of opinions when you quite literally don't know who you are talking about.

Care to comment on the below?

> What guy? This comment proves more than anything else that you're a bot, or are not really able to read comprehensively. Multiple people have asked you to clarify your position and you always give some crappy excuse why you can't, walking around it like a shit circling the drain. And now you replied to me talking about a completely different person? Are you just following some script?

So you either are: Mindlessly arguing about sensitive topics to get a rise out of people OR Completely clueless on what the fuck is being discussed OR A bot created to argue about sensitive topics to get a rise out of people

Which one is it?

Interesting that you would have such an uncharitable takeaway from this given you are a fan of his.

He uses it (the drug cocktail) as an example on understanding and its role on evaluating alignment.

He poses this question

>Before injecting this cocktail into your bloodstream, would you find it reassuring to know that there is at least one human cancer expert who understands – even partially – the mechanism behind this cure?

To which I would answer 'well yes of course'.

And I believe that you would too. Greater understanding is a good thing and worth striving for in a changing landscape.

That is what he is advocating for within mathematics. Whether or not we currently understand the mechanism of action of Pepto or Tylenol is not really relevant to the core message.

That's an insane amount of energy. If your are knowledgeable about this do you know why some neutrinos have more energy than others? surely it is just a relationship with it's speed. I thought all neutrinos moved close to the speed of light.

If my quick math is correct that is equivalent to dropping 3.59g one meter in a vacuum in earths gravity. insane that a subatomic particle can have that much energy.

What exactly do you mean by 'these people'?

Assuming RSI is something that is possible as you envision it in the near term. I think that it will happen at some point, but I think we could still be a long way off. I don't think anyone can truthfully say that it is right around the corner.

It's really interesting to me how many people on this forum do propose that it's possible that they may be conscious.

Because we as people don't have a strong definition or understanding of what consciousness even is many people seem to take the position that it may be, and it's impossible to disprove. It feels similar philosophically to debating the existence of God.

I think it's possible this rift between people continues to grow just like it does between theists and atheists.

I would be very curious to see the stats on how many people think llms are conscious and/or may be conscious today vs. in 5, 10, or 15 years.

same here. How to kill a platform 101.

Greedy fucks. I've hated them ever since they took RIF away from me.

what kinds of things?

After reading this comment I think it would be worth 11 billion dollars just to get you off this forum.

Reading other comments in this thread it appears to be more of an EU rule/law. Can you elaborate on how this is 'on' meta?

I can't believe how many people in this thread consider it a possibility that currently there could be consciousness. Surely it seems possible to me that in the right kind of distributed network something like that could emerge, but though llms are complex they have nowhere near the level of complexity necessary. Sometimes you just have to use your gut. I don't believe in heaven or hell and I don't believe an llm is conscious.

> The best theory I have heard is that subjective experience is a field of some sort (the EM field, maybe?).

what would be producing the field for us to pick up? That explanation sounds no more scientific than astrology.

I'm not sure if that's the best framing. Could you not extrapolate that to anything else?

"The only way that '(trees, shrimp, ants) are not conscious' can be true is if we decide, with high confidence, that they are lacking some essential property that is not lacking in ourselves. There is no convincing philosophical position that supports this (convincing to me, anyway)."

Do you really live in a place that does not have independent bookstores? The market is a little more niche, but they still exist and can do well.

> If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then surely it is a moral obligation for us to do that.

I wonder what this would look like. I feel like nearly all of mankinds greatest achievements are due to our current structure of employment or at being forced to do something at the behest of someone elses ends.

This is such a cool project. My mom would absolutely love this if I made it as a gift. This may be a good project.

I know this does not really contribute to the discussion and I have nothing against you or what you've said, but man am I sick of reading the word moat in this context.

ugh, I would get those as a kid. I've never heard the term 'nested false awakening' applied to them, but I like that. I'm glad I don't get them anymore.. the feeling of wondering if it is a dream or not and feeling like you are locked onto a roller coaster you can't get off of. Luckily in my experience once I actually woke up I would know for sure that it was real. I think it would mess with your psyche if you couldn't tell or convince yourself you weren't in another nested dream.

In what way is talking on the phone a different cognitive load that talking to a passenger?

After googling the 8th or 10th result had a link to the study I assume you are referencing.

I just don't agree with you. I believe that there is risk when driving inherently although relatively low and a 400% increase from 0.0001 to 0.0004 does not really concern me.

I have been in one accident in 15 years and I was not at fault and it was unavoidable.

Many people engage in all sorts of distracted driving, texting, eating, driving while tired etc. which I would wager are more detrimental than speaking on the phone.

Having your one bone to pick being speaking on the phone just seems absurd and an odd message to preach when nearly everyone does it.

But physical records also cannot be made secure. And the convenience is gigantic. I think that it is worth it, as clearly does much of the world.

Talking on the phone is extremely dangerous? What are your thoughts on talking with a passenger? Is that something that people ought to stop doing? Drive in silence. 100% focus?

Seems like an overreaction.

Please be sarcasm...

I could show you 10,000 yt videos that show there are plenty of cops that abuse power and harass.