mcphage

> Also, the average consumer is not going to be running a local model until they are built into the hardware they already buy and when they are, who is supplying the weights?

Apple or Nvidia, presumably.

Interview 1,000 people about:

1. Are you a cat person or a dog person?

2. How do you feel about AI agents?

And then determine which answers have a higher correlation.

Is he? He comes across as an overbearing, bossy boor. Do you have to be the right kind of person to find him funny or something?

> It should be globally a standard check to verify incoming documents and to determine their validity.

Part of that process is bringing in expert witnesses and I don't think ChatGPT qualifies.

Not even a gorillion

> Medicaid expansion was a big part of the ACA.

Well see, first you narrowly define the ACA to be "everything that didn't help"...

1. Save the cheerleader, save the world.

2. We clearly did not save the world.

3. Ergo, we did not save the cheerleader.

It’s Modus Tollens, and this just plain sucks. She was a great actress.

> How about acknowledgement that there was a reason these people got elected and the addressing of grievances that brought that about.

How about acknowledgement of the tremendous damage that their decision made and addressing the grievances that resulted from the consequences of their action?

I don’t either, but he does.

Ah, okay, then that makes sense. Thanks :-)

I get that, but if this was actually a chance to beat him, wouldn’t that have been better?

> All of the major parties except for Reform withdrew their candidates in protest of Farage.

This doesn't make sense. If they wanted to protest Farage, wouldn't they be better off running a serious candidate against him?

> to become competitive in the space.

In the rocket ship space?

> What constitutes a "meaningful" difference?

Well, replacing the sun with the moon constitutes a meaningful difference. Let’s start there and work our way down.

> You can do horrifying and amazing things with Excel. Samsung’s Austin fab, at least circa 2020-ish, was generating machine labels with it.

Generating machine labels seems useful, but I don't think that feels particularly horrifying or amazing. Just like, yeah, that's something it should be able to do.

> insisting, among other things, that it double- and triple-check all citations and references to make sure not only that the referenced papers existed but also that they actually said what the paper Claude wrote claimed they said

So your solution to get it to not hallucinate was to ask it not to hallucinate? And you suppose that this was a novel approach? What, that people just hadn’t tried that before?

> AI has gotten so good, people are trying to pass AI work off as “100% human-powered.”

I’m not sure the company in this article qualifies—it seemed immediately obvious that it wasn’t real.

Just to share, from that list, this one is a classic: https://theonion.com/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mi...

You’re probably right. The nazis, if given the opportunity to use this technology to root out dissidents, would probably just say “no thanks, we’re already so good at killing, we don’t need to bother with this new technology.”

Yep, that is what every collaborator tells themselves to justify their actions. “Oh, it’s not like I made any difference, they were already going to kill all those people.”

> It's a shame that today's "technologists" are eager to ignore the political axis of technology if it means they get to talk about ESP or Von Neumann machines. It's like I'm watching the field progress in reverse, transitioning from a crowd of self-righteous and skeptical consumers to a mystic and eschatological identity that eschews understanding.

My brother in Christ, the call is coming from inside the house.

> It's not nazis with brain scanners.

Why not? Where do you suppose the nazis would go, once they got ahold of some brain scanners?

> Their argument against BCI is that it will be used in government-mandated purity tests to forcibly rally their subjects. But that's a political objective

Then why did you start this thread by complaining that technologists ignore the politics of technologies?

> It's a shame that today's "technologists" are eager to ignore the political axis of technology if it means they get to talk about ESP

Your comment reads to me like a criticism of lesswrong, but the linked article is entirely about the political axis of a potential technology. Am I misunderstanding your comment?

> nobody wants books anymore

I don't really think that's true.

There are non-destructive automated scanners.

> Well, and the Apple Car.

How is the Apple Car a stain on his legacy? They worked on something, and decided not to do it. Who cares? Apple’s management of the App Store has ruined mobile apps. Nobody gives a shit about the car.

> Yet, lo and behold, we survived!

This is called survivorship bias. Sure, we survived—but that’s because you’re not including all of the bored people who died of reading instruction labels.

> The only thing Fable was given was a clean of copy of the Ancient Greek.

…and all of its training data.

> I'm sure there's a plaintext essay that can explain this just as well if the RCT style was distracting.

Not distracting, just felt like a missed opportunity. A factory simulation that you could watch the different ingredients come in and travel through different building would have been neat.