PowerElectronix

I think there's a point as you increase the comolexity of the "information processing" system where you get emergent intelligence.

A mechanism that makes a rotor go one way or the other as a function of the time derivative of a variable would not qualify as such.

Now, if you have a trillion such mecanisms atuned and feeding one anothers inputs in a network... Well you just got yourself a brain and then we can start talking about intelligence.

Not much more, tbh, but the way we act to maximize our intakes are so much more sophisticated than a simple control regulator that I think we deserve to be called intelligent.

I agree with you in that it is very subjective to define intelligence.

I personally define it as more of an emergent property where you increase the complexity of the problem solving machine to the point where it begins to be more than just interconnected automatisms.

Maybe it could be said that processing information is not intelligence by itself. Intelligence, for me, requires the ability to adapt the way one processes information to the task at hand, either by changing it entirely of adapting and tuning to get more out of it.

A fixed mechanism that controls a variable can't be intelligent.

The democratization of drones capable of carrying a spicy payload would put a check to that, I imagine.

I would like yo argue thatbthis is not intelligence. A system regulated with a nutrient sensor that increases concentration of said nutrient and changes the turning direction of the flagella when the concetration lower bellow a threshold is not intelligent. It's a fully automatic mechanism, which is the opposite of what it is understood by itelligence.

It is cool, but not intelligence.

Wirh every potential productivity revolution it's the same. it will make poeple's job obsolete, it will make everything so much faster and cheaper that people will just "work" for the pleasure of it.

After a while it also ends up being the same, the job market is shaken and people now have to work just as much as they can but in different, newer jobs to make different newer things.

No post-scarcity commie utopia is ever going to be possible because even in that society, the people that work their ass off will be so ever slightly ahead of the others, so now everyone hast to do it to not be "left behind".

It's extremely interesting that the genes that regulate this are non-protein coding. More light shed on the actual functionality of "junk" DNA, even if it's for cats.

I guess it's a theoretical limit as in the material can change properties that fast given a fast light signal.

I know someone did it with a washing machine, I thought doing it with a dishwasher would be pretty much the same.

https://www.techspot.com/news/4230-automated-beer-brewing-wi...

A cruise missile is much less versatile and programmable than a dishwasher.

You can program a diswhasher to brew beer.

Russia, if you value your stuff you should not start wars you are not prepared to fight.

In bunkers, IDK. In places far away from conflict or conflictive nations, a lot.

Not only psychology, but training. If your body gets a load of sugar every time it tastes UPF additives, it learns to release insulin on taste to protect itself.

The scale is the issue, for me. Having several small-time, disjointed ooerations doing ocr doesn't threaten the general population as much as having eyes everywhere taking notes of who is where at any given time.

The power the flock infrastructure has to target people is unprecedented in the US. And the kind of power I would never want anyone to wield.

This one you can rationalize as the moneyless/barter exchange of "I will eat a shit if you eat a shit" or if you see as an "arbitrage", "we both value eating a shit slightly lower than making the other eat a shit" thus we can make the other eat a shit for the very low price of eating a shit ourself.

Or you can see it as a very basic representation of money flowing in the opposite way of services and goods in the economy, you can even measure the speed of money with the amount of shit they make each other eat in an afternoon.

Two economists pass by a $100 bill walking down the street. After a while, one asks the other if it was a $100 bill what they just walked by before.

The other answers: "Of course not, someone would haved picked it up already if it were"

Some times low hanging fruit is so low hanging that people don't bother to look for it as it's "obvious" someone else would had picked it already.

You hear that a lot in third world countries where people nonlonger wanna go work.

I guess when my parcel arrives all crumbled it's because it was along other 23 parcels instead of 22 and the courier knows his optimal square packing solutions.

What's with all the "AI just proved that this or that isn't O(n (log (n))^2) but akshually O(n (log (n))^1.99999)"??

I guess it deserves respect as progress, but it just rubs me the wrong way. Like the machine did the absolute minimum to beat the previous mark.

We've always have public coachmen and public bars and restaurants. The fact that there are many more now only means a lot more people can afford them.

Someone applied for .slop, I hope they make it.

Not in the least. Today in the US less than 1% of the population works as home service. In victorian England it was around 10%.

The US is a powerful "empire", but the UK is the most powerful Empire to ever have existed.

Permanent whatever time is better than changing times. Standard or daylight saving doesn't matter, society will adapt schedules to either.

Both are the same. You either change the clock twice a year or you don't. Society will adapt to it either way.

With standard time you eat at 12 and with daylight saving you eat at 1, either way you eat when the sun is highest or around that time.

The thing is that the biannual dance of the clock hands wrecks any notion of time and schedules as this month you eat/wake up/leave work too early and the next too late.

>Other than life itself, no one had achieved this feat.

Yeah, when you put it that way it sounds pretty impresive.

I'd say it's not the amount of computation being done, but the way it is done. A calculator is not conscious no matter how fast it is.

A human brain, capable of catching itself making a mistake, is conscious.

An LLM, with both its code and HW being written on stone, is not. If you input the same string, you get the same string (except for some ramdomizer in the mix). It cannot change the output and it cannot detect the processing of the output.

This reads like neither the prompter or the AI know enough about magnetism to claim they found a new candidate for a magnetic semi.

No, because it's not aware of being at work, it just is at work. There's only math and calculations moving tokens from the input to the output. It's as conscious as a spreadsheet.

It is aware of what it's processing. That's all conciousness is.

If you open a dictionary and read the entry for "dictionary" or "define" you can't say that the dictionary is conscious of its inner working. In the same way the information moving through the weights of an LLM can't be said to be conscious of itself.

By the encyclopedia britannica:

"psychological condition defined by the English philosopher John Locke as “the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind.”

So it is impossible to prove that any being outside of oneself has conciousness, unless you compare brain scanners like they did to prove that the color blue is seen the same by everyone (same neural structures lighting up).

But... An LLM clearly can't have consciouness, as its "mind" would be the weights in the model, and the passing through it would be the data going from the input tokens to the output tokens. There is no place for the LLM to detect what is going inside and process it separately.