kbrkbr

Here is a better chart to back this up. Data from France, UK, Germany and US:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

Seems pretty unique to US.

Thus I conclude that most of the speculation in this thread is not backed by the facts.

But why is this trend then not visible in Germany? All of what you say applies there too.

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoel...

Your post touches two points worth to think about:

The test for consciousness: if we do have zero criterion, how we are gonna find out if something is conscious?

That is already a good indicator how much we do not know about the „mechanism” of consciousness.

Point two is that we in fact know so little, that we cannot even nail a probability for some complex mechanism if is conscious.

A car: probably not, too far away from things that are conscious.

An ant?

A microphone that listens to its output?

A k-means run on some data?

An llm?

Some electricity in a biological neural network?

If only we had a proven criterion to decide!

RWKV does: https://github.com/BlinkDL/RWKV-LM It uses „the Pile“: https://pile.eleuther.ai/ And I’ve seen some more in the last weeks.

For the tinkerers: here are some huggingface available models that are really open source (Apache or BSD license as far as I evaluated it):

- RWKV (raven 14B)

- GPT-NeoX-Chat-Base (20B)

- Flan-T5-xxl

- Fairseq Dense (13B)

- Pythia Chat Base (7B)

- Codegen (16B)

- Bloomz (7B)

Some are general, some are more specific. But I could get something out of all of them.

Your proposal seems to me to put socio-economic problems on the back of individuals. Imagine what they would have to do. For every line of code they would have you predict all the socio-economic consequences. I rather think such problems should be solved politically.

At the end of the day we need to pay our bills, take care of our kids, and have something on the side for retirement.

If I don’t implement this system, someone else with less foresight or less alternatives will.

I agree with you for clearly evil stuff. But the system we’re talking about seems in a grey zone.

Not much is known, but that seems a really really strange story of the kind: didn’t you think about the potential consequences?

In my opinion the problem with these is engineering a good prompt. I read of lots of people only getting nonsense or repetitions, and learned a bit from what they shared. These models are not chat bots.

Vicuna is more friendly in that regard.

But I’m well aware of their limitations also, and I can see how one can be underwhelmed. They are not jacks of all trades

I started with ggerganov’s llama.cpp GitHub repo, and went from there. But then again, I know some programming, statistics and machine learning, so it may not be for you, I cannot judge that.

Models can be found on huggingface.co, and I’d start with eachadea/ggml-vicuna-13b-4bit, but it needs 10G of cpu-ram. It is very friendly to any prompt though.

I read on my way (on reddit, when I recall correctly), that there must be some really good intro videos on YouTube.

From my experience with llama.cpp and oobaboogas webui I can say they are amazing, at least on my gaming pc. I’m absolutely astonished at the speed and quality of llama, alpaca, galactica and vicuna (the >10B parameters ones).

Make no mistake, it’s for tinkerers that do not expect each prompt to be answered human like.

I see them as creativity and thought testing tools, also knowledge exploratory.

Animals seem ok with it. At least they did not indicate otherwise so far.

This

Weren’t the events that lead to this a massive multiplayer prisoner‘s dilemma, with a large defect wave?

> [W]e assume that the

> term ‘aspect’ denotes an instantiated phenomenal property or quale. The set of aspects A(e),

> then, comprises the phenomenal properties or qualia which are instantiated in the experience e,

> also called the phenomenal states of the experience e. Our question, then, is what it means

> that “any set of phenomenal states of a subject at a time is phenomenally unified”

> [...]

> A promising answer is the

> so-called subsumptive unity thesis, developed in [5]:

> “For any set of phenomenal states of a subject at a time, the subject has a

> phenomenal state that subsumes each of the states in that set.” [5, p. 20]

> According to this thesis, what underlies the experience of the unity of a conscious experience

> is that for any set X of phenomenal states in the conscious experience, there is a further

> phenomenal state that subsumes each of the states in X. This phenomenal state characterizes

> what it is like to be in all of the states of X at once [5, p. 20].

> [...]

> Phenomenal unity gives rise to a mathematical structure of conscious experience.

When I try to state this in natural language I come to something like "Conscious states consist of qualities, or contain qualia. And they are unified _in_ consciousness, meaning that our experience is whole. The mathematical structure is this: For any set of experiencing qualities there is a(n additional) state integrating them all into one state."

When I studied philosophy in the 2000s we discussed such kinds of solutions already in a seminar and found them lacking on two grounds.

First: there is no clear notion of non-conscious qualia, and Ockham help us here to keep it so. But if this is true, each of the integrated states already presupposes the whole (because it is already conscious, consciousness is more the medium of qualia), which then cannot come after them to unify them. Unless one wants to assume that a lot of conscious splintered experiences are integrated into a whole later. That would be even more questionable, because who experiences them?

Second: The integrating state needs another integrating state to integrate it into the whole of conscious experience etc. ad inf. Unless it is a state that integrates itself into the whole as well, which would just be a sleigh of hand - because exactly that is the riddle that a mathematical structure must overcome to be about consciousness. The self-reference, the self-presentation of consciousness. Apologies for lacking the proper terminology here.

edit: formatting

Let’s assume we find some mathematical models for a causal structure of consciousness that meets many of the criteria described by usual humans and maybe phenomenologists.

We later find some possible physical instantiation.

And here comes some bullsh*t (in the philosophical definition of „unclarifiable unclarity”): an electromagnetic field bend back on itself in a way that it’s mathematically necessary to introduce imaginary time to describe it; also it exhibits information processing capabilities.

We then further find that the biological brain has a process that can plausibly create such a dynamic structure.

Finally we test, and subjects say consistently it seems like they are not there or do not experience, if this structure is disrupted by several clever means.

Would this problem still be impossible? We could check if AI has features that can and do create such structures, no?

That’s at least an old dream of mine. Please pick it apart still! I’d rather learn something important than keep it…

Can you help me understand why it may not be? At this moment I’m thinking political leanings are normative, and must just not go against facts.

Since it was a company thing I was not allowed to publish the data, it was only pulled. Apologies if my wording created a false impression, that was not my intention

Just migrated my infosec early warning bot (search for #zeroday etc. plus a spam filter) to Mastodon. Goodbye and good riddance Twitter! Thinking also of all these data science courses that need to be updated now, I did two on edX and both had a Twitter project afair. Maybe they just do the same.

Right. On top of that I just ordered a technical book - new and for quite a price.

Only to then find someone else‘s notes starting on page 13.

Seems dark patterns are not enough anymore, and they opt now for outright fraud.

This. It’s not clear and I see a lot of ways the story could go differently. If the past is a guide, another ai winter is much more likely than agi.

Intuition feels the same when it’s right and when it’s wrong and it’s not a guide to decide what is clear, let alone inevitable.

Show proof/evidence or accept that it’s just an unfounded opinion.

I use duckduckgo as default, but whenever I need just and exactly some specific keywords, then I use startpage.com.

They seem to be the only ones not assuming I am stupid and/or do not know what I want.

It’s just me, but I do not call anything without a clear time line a „forecast“. Is it a forecast if you cannot decide clearly if it has happened or not? What then have you forecast?

Edit: s/prediction/forecast/a

> In the following, I briefly review three a priori arguments that purport to demonstrate that “computation” alone can never realize human-like understanding, and, a fortiori, no computational AI system will ever fully “grasp” human meaning.

So on the one side we have science and engineering, backed by lots and lots of working applications, saying „let’s try and find out“, „let’s see how far we come“.

And on the other side, we have philosophy, with a priori arguments which say this and that must or must not be so.

Clearly I’m on the side of a priori arguments, they have a history of working well. Remember when Kant proved that empirical space must be euclidean [1]? Or Hegel that there can only be seven planets [2]?

/s

[1] http://jur.byu.edu/?p=9200

[2] https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/01/17/hegel-does-maths

I’ll second that and add that in the south of Germany also Bretzels and Obatzda is a thing [1], which is a very tasty creamy cheese and spice mix you dip the Bretzel in.

But this time you do not cut the Bretzel, but break off the pieces at the break points. Start with the thin parts of the Bretzel.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obatzter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obatzda

The german version has an image with a Bretzel

Right. Thanks for that thoughtful comment, now I remember epsilon and delta.

Just want to add that this way of looking at it is only helpful if reals are the agreed upon number set.

If we talk about rational numbers the 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 proof is not so bad, is it? Rational numbers can be expressed using repeated decimal notation.

Even the enforcement of rules and the expectation on that are location dependent. Someone I know walked on a crosswalk in a southern european country, expecting that this will be honored like it is here. Ended up in hospital for two weeks. No driver there expected it.

I’m honestly shocked every time I read something like this. My first reaction is: where did this go so wrong? “Scepticism is violence”? Scepticism once was science! And everything I learned points to that it should be so.

But then I think that I maybe get something wrong. Maybe I miss something on a deep level.

Because so many seem to embrace “this” whatever it is.

I can’t understand it. Can anyone?

This study makes a causal claim (“… suggests that this association was mediated…”). The article you refer to speaks of correlation, but the last paragraph is also reading the correlation as causation.

I have a hard time thinking of how to get around all the potential confounders starting with the genetic or psychological traits of the involved women and men, that might cause both: a “traditional” stance on how housework is shared and the strength of sexual desire.

This is why I am quite skeptic that there is an interesting thing to learn here. Sadly I have not found a way to read the whole study.

This had zero chance of succeeding.

Germany is a federal state with strong separation of power between federal government and local governments with local police forces.

Society is split like elsewhere, but the fringe parties like AFD are at 15% in general election weekly question [1]. This is Don Quixotery.

It can also be seen in the layout of German newspapers: spiegel.de and bild.de have the main article behind a paywall. They don’t do this for important news.

[1] https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

Edit: updated link

The moral police was introduced under Ahmadinedshad‘s rein, so not long ago. It is not a fundament of the current regime.