shwaj

Are you one-shotting then reading/understanding? Then probably slop.

Are you iterating to help you understand, prompting to rename/restructure/document until you would have been able to easily understand without AI? Then probably not slop.

Nothing is surprising these days, but is USAID funding known to have made it to Salon?

Me neither, but it's also not reducing my confidence about alignment. I'm curious: does this raise specific concerns for you? Models don't typically have access to their own weights to self-modify. This result might (assuming that it doesn't only hold for a bigger network editing a smaller one) provide an incentive for it to gain unauthorized access to its weights, but by that point it is already highly unaligned.

I don't see how that helps. It would still be one expert model chosen to operate on another expert model of (let's say for this discussion) approximately the same size.

The parent's point still stands, I think. Even if the multi-trillion param model is MOE, each expert is still (assumedly) larger than the model being optimized.

It would be interesting to see future work that characterizes the relative model sizes (and considers MOE vs not-MOE) to see what relative scales this result holds across.

Plus with more low precision compute… to help with the memory bandwidth!

How could it possibly be otherwise? Single core performance goes up every year, but not enough that this year’s 12-core CPU beats last year’s 18-core CPU at multithreaded benchmarks.

This is “sad”?!? First world problems.

It was their eyeballs not drying out or squinting due to the wind for me.

Sounds like an eventual Supreme Court case.

What do you mean “projection”? The “we” they’re referring to are those who feel the same as them. It apparently doesn’t include you.

“Meet the new heart of your home”. Move over, hearts of the actual people in your home, and the love between them: we’ve got a new gadget.

Fuchsia is an “option”, although it doesn’t support much hardware without writing your own drivers.

Apologies, I was referring only to your idiosyncratic and non-explicit definition of what knowledge is and isn’t, and it’s tautological and dubious nature.

Not your contention that LLMs likely have something analogous to what you call “ideas” (you’re almost certainly right).

Mostly irrelevant? Dunno, maybe according to your rigid ontology ;-p

Cheers!

So your position boils down to “the only real knowledge is that which is provable”. Tautological. And probably not self-consistent, given Gödel.

This feels like a very rigid ontology. I know what type of food my dog prefers. An executive assistant has intimate knowledge of their boss’s needs. Neither of these would become knowledge if they were written down for the first time; they already are.

You’re distinguishing “knowledge” from “idea” in a particular way that doesn’t correspond to common usage (see my counter examples). Without you being explicit about your definitions, I can’t tell whether what you’re saying is meaningful. It feels tautological.

Given that an executive assistant has unwritten knowledge that is necessary to do their job, where your evidence that no mathematician has analogous knowledge (using the word in the common way, not whatever way you mean it)?

It’s possible, but it’s not as obvious as you seem to think.

Thank you!

Is it? Sorry, skill issue I guess. I regularly use the Claude app on phone and laptop, and have never seen it produce non-text chat output.

The point, I think, is to make fun of Anthropic models, which answer only in text when you ask them how to do something. They’re the competition, not paper pamphlets.

Who was trying to make the US and China appear the same? I think you have reading comprehension problems, buddy.

If you look at the comment I responded to, they were remarking on selective enforcement in the USA. I merely observed that this isn’t a unique feature of the US system, it happens in China too. I said nothing about the severity of the consequences.

In a list describing how the USA system works, sure: selective enforcement is there.

As a differentiator from the Chinese system, not so much. For two otherwise equal companies, the one that says things against the party line will experience selective enforcement too.

He may very well have been the first to coin that term!

Please reread. I am not making the claim that OpenAI is hypocritical.

I am making the claim that the article headline is clickbait because it paints OpenAI as hypocritical for firing workers for using AI to do their job, which is a mischaracterization because the whole job is to give human input.

Really? It’s clickbait because it paints OpenAI as hypocritical: “look they’re marketing AI as valuable, and they won’t even let their own people use it”. When in fact the job description is to not use AI.

So does Gödel. Maybe it was a joke? Unclear.

The article didn’t make it clear: the breakthrough is the discovery of a new third brain, beyond the two previously known.

Why is it ironic? Sounds like an honest question from someone who doesn’t know.

I think you’re conflating the direction of definition with the direction of evaluation.

Compare the similarity of:

  AI(n) = improve(AI(n-1))

With:

  Fib(n) = Fib(n-1) + Fib(n-2)

The latter is a classic example of recursion. So why isn’t the former?

Edit: formatting

“Recursive” is a reasonable term because the generation N AIs will train the Generation N+1 AIs. The term “iterative” doesn’t reflect this nuance as well IMO.

The risks of open models are real.

However, I’d feel better about ceding control of AI to the government if they didn’t seem so intent on building an apparatus for surveillance/control.

Your “furry fanfic” is a somewhat pathetic scarecrow; this is a complicated topic.

Neuromancer came out in 1984, over 40 years ago, so that covers the broad concept. Or Neo in The Matrix: “Programs hacking programs… why?”

For non-fiction you could look at Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014).

More recently, see Cade Metz’s NYT profile of Geoffrey Hinton, “The Godfather of A.I. Leaves Google and Warns of Danger Ahead” (May 1, 2023).

I was under the impression that Go also uses Elo, then I did a bit of cursory research and discovers that it varies.

Two major federations are American Go Association (AGA) and European Go Federation (EGF). EGF uses an Elo-inspired update rule since 2021. AGA uses a quite-different Bayesian system without pairwise update; they provide a paper and a C++ reference impl.

Asian countries don't bother with such numeric ratings. Instead, rankings are titles which are won through tournament promotion structures (sounds similar to Sumo to me).

Interesting, because I always thought that it was more "apples to apples", and that the higher upper limits of Go rankings was somehow indicative of the higher "dynamic range" of the game compared to chess. For example, if Elo were applied to basketball, what would the Elo of Lebron James be compared to a playground hooper (leaving aside that 1-on-1 isn't the best part of Lebron's game)... would it be higher or lower than Magnus Carlsen in chess? I don't have an intuition.