therealpygon

Playing the critic that alternate “50%” outcomes were:

- You didn’t have a thyroid issue and you spent thousands more on tests the doctor was right that you didn’t need.

- Your cat didn’t have that issue and you spent hundreds on unnecessary tests.

Are you essentially saying that it is better for an LLM to sell you an idea that sometimes might be right, selling a dream to anyone with and without the money for it?

So… a telephone psychic?

The thing about WebMD telling everyone they have cancer is that sometimes it will be right.

(Just for clarity, I’m really glad it was helpful for you.)

“Everything else”. Societies get to decide exactly how much is, can, or will be automated, what decisions must be left to humans and what role we will play.

The business. No matter how it was generated they used the imagery and are responsible for any infringements or liabilities.

Does one of them not supposedly support democracy?

There is no inherent self limitation from cigarettes beyond the time it takes to smoke a cigarette. I’m not sure who you knew that smoked but I can say for certain that long-time heavy users don’t need an hour break. Quite the opposite. Abusers will hack up a lung after minutes without a cigarette puff and will wake up in the middle of the night to smoke, repeatedly.

This thread (outside your statements) is such a bizarre conversation to me that somehow people have deluded themselves into the argument a cigarette is a better option than putting in work to quit. Heroin could probably help someone stop smoking pot…that doesn’t mean it is a better choice just because “it’s harder to afford when you’re a junkie and therefore takes longer to get a hit than finding a J”.

I get the capability to abuse is easier than a cigarette, no disagreement. It’s probably similar to when smoking was allowed everywhere including on planes and in restaurants. I don’t see how the solution to ease of use, ease of access, and manufacturers adding far too much nicotine is “start smoking a different product with proven worse health consequences, including cancer, rather than vaping too much and possibly having some negative health effects”. These days nearly all major vape companies are owned by tobacco companies. They have a lot of experience in pushing the addictiveness boundaries for significant profit from the past 100+ years, and they are doing it again with vapes.

I say all this as someone who smoked for 15+ years, up to a pack and a half to two packs a day, vaped increasingly more nicotine over 5 years, and quit vaping over the course of a year by mixing 0mg nicotine liquid -- almost every vape liquid manufacturer offers it -- in fractionally increasing ratios each week until I was only vaping zero nicotine. I continued vaping 0mg for years after because I actually enjoy the act of smoking, but I finally just decided not to anymore.

Choosing not to quit and choosing not take any responsibility or steps toward battling your addictions are vastly different from not being capable. Everyone has the capacity to battle their addictions when they choose to, and small counter-examples or lack of success do not negate that premise.

Maybe he will even give everyone a bonus, but only if they agree with his philosophy during the next employee survey. It’s a new fad I heard about.

While I have always tried to live my life by your assumed philosophy, I think they were simply saying that since (on average) a more expensive vehicle often means a more mechanically sound vehicle less likely to break down. It’s not just the peace in being less likely to have to deal with that situation, it is the stress when it occurs. If you have to buy a $1000 car, you aren’t likely to have savings sitting around available to you to fix your vehicle when something needs replacement every month or two. Knowing that entire situation is constantly looming is just another slice of the high background stress pie. Newer (more expensive) vehicles will tend to have more wear left on operational parts, so they tend to have less mechanical breakdowns and less parts that need be replaced. Many are the breakdowns that “could” happen with any vehicle, but a lot more are just parts wearing out from age; brakes here, CVs there, gas pump one day, a battery another. They all add up quickly, especially for someone who can’t fix their own car (a single mother of two just trying to get to her jobs, for example), especially when it not only costs you money, you may not even get paid because you couldn’t make it to work and had to call out (and if you’re lucky, don’t get fired because it has happened too much). That entire situation isn’t stress that you can just casually ignore — or at least, that was my experience while being poor.

> only available to people over 18 years

And terrorists. And hostile foreign powers. But at least we’ve protected Timmy from being curious, which is always what is most important.

Or if like PlayOn, they’ll simply replace your legacy lifetime license software with their new version that no longer does the core functionality that has to be kept up to date — recording different providers — without upgrading to their new extra-special monthly cloud licensing that replaces your “lifetime” license you bought to support their fledgling business. One thing is almost certain, any software claimed to be “Lifetime” will become a lie if given time and one should assume “lifetime” in software almost never means more than 5-10 years before a new executive has a bright idea to generate more revenue.

You’re still taking? Literally no one cares about your opinion in this entire thread, but uh, go ahead and keep making your idiot point.

Here you can have the last word since you apparently need it so bad for “just” saying something:

Yes, you’ve been trolling everyone in this thread about how they are traitors in response to them questioning someone who stated that anyone who disagreed with pausing AI are traitors because they support “super intelligence”, not even “uncontrolled”. You didn’t “just” do anything, and you should probably try reading your comments and the context again rather than whatever obvious point you thought you were “just” making. I mean that is why you just made an observation and moved on? Right?

Nah, it was this instead:

“I was just saying they didn’t need to include some text, repeatedly, 28 times while saying people are traitors. But then I’m gonna try to say I wasn’t actually doing that even though I did it repeatedly, because obviously everyone else was just too stupid to understand my absolutely useless observation that I felt I needed to defend repeatedly because obviously everyone is too dumb to understand my incredible observatory powers, and people couldn’t possibly be disagreeing because I look like an idiot repeatedly trolling about people being traitors.”

Did you really think everyone was disagreeing that it wasn’t necessary? You really are something, fun times watching it though, but hey, you should definitely repeat that silly observation one more time.

“They included a provision to certify again that they agree with common sense, how unnecessary!” No kidding dumb-dumb… that’s why they do it…so people voting against it can be labeled traitors to humanity…like you’ve been doing…

Does it really need to be spelled out so plainly how useless your observation is and the net effect of your incessant replying to people who disagree with the person you decided to defend with your “observation”? Nevermind, apparently it does since your 6 defensive comments deep “just” making an observation.

I understand that you don’t understand. Reiterating that doesn’t help.

No one, at all, at any point “supported” uncontrollable super-intelligence. They questioned your idiotic reasoning of how not believing in your ASSumed outcome makes them traitorous. Which you’ve still failed to be capable of recognizing, thus making it all the more humorous to read.

“Can and will”

Yeah bud, you definitely aren’t saying the outcome is automatic. Or maybe you are, and the low IQ take is in not recognizing it?

> I don’t take your opinions seriously

In fairness, I personally believe anyone who thinks that uncontrolled super-intelligence will be the automatic outcome is an absolute idiot likely to have a below-average IQ, but that probably leaves me and most people on equal footing with you in the “no one actually cares what your opinion is” race.

Apparently, some people lack the technical understanding that an AI, by itself, literally can’t do anything at all and that it is the tools and harnessing provided to an AI that allows it to perform any type of action. Given this is such basic and fundamental knowledge to anyone who even attempts to understand how they work, I can only assume they are incapable of understanding. I would love to hear the intelligent basis for your ideas on how disagreeing with stupidity makes them a traitor.

“Opt-in” means to agree to something. If something is “opt-in by default”, it means that it is opt-out and someone is using weasel wording and contract inducements to force you into something you didn’t actually agree to. Any “disagreement” is just people trying to advocate for what they wished it meant.

I find it interesting that you were perfectly happy with it, enjoying it even, but it was only at the point you noticed a minor word pronounced incorrectly that you flip to the extreme, hate it and want to block it to never see it again?

I’ve started calling this “AI Bipolar”, and I find it fascinating. It seems like people are offended that they were “duped” into enjoying AI generated content, but will continue on to the next lower-quality human-made content with all sorts of issues that they will completely forgive solely out of comfort that it is a human doing it.

> Somewhere, you need aluminum smelters, steel mills, and copper mines.

Why? We already have plenty of materials that can, are close, or have potential pathways for functional substitutes depending on the application? We are already pretty reliably able to print metal with machines no bigger than a fridge.

What happens when a curable resin or impregnated plastic can sufficiently replace steel/aluminum/copper for functions? Why would a steel foundry be needed for the desktop then? There are more theoretical materials that haven’t been discovered than there are atoms in the universe or something crazy like that, so it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility or even likelihood. Especially if AI helps accelerate that discovery, as it seems to be doing already according to a recent Faraday talk in a Royal Institution video — "How AI is Reinventing the Battery".

It also used to be that you needed a large machine to make a plastic part…now I print some in 20 minutes with something that sits on my desk. If one thing is true, it’s that materials and technology constantly change and (generally) improve.

Actual real people think the world is flat, Elvis is alive, and aliens are regularly flying around the planet. Is preventing peoples unimportant personal beliefs really an important goal or is this just more warning label culture?

In fairness, people also don’t say “let me ask llama” or “llama told me…” like they do with “GPT”.

Colloquialisms don’t establish importance, just popularity.

Plus, many people also seem to not realize that our baseline is needing to create around 150k jobs a month just to keep the same unemployment rate. So in this current version of paper reality we lost 20k jobs and also failed to employ another 150k new workers, increasing unemployment by 170k. And I suspect those numbers are generously offset by people who have been forced to take significantly lower wages just to find work.

I think this combined with a bit of memory and something like the “high-bandwidth flash” they just announced (if it works out), could be an interesting thing for some resident (burned) experts + active moe streamed from HBF.

I expect one day having small lower power demand drive sized devices with proprietary burned-in models that are quite fast running on-device in robotics and such. Commoditizing LLMs via burned and locked hardware seems likely when LLMs have stabilized (when we reach a year between releases again) and the hardware is capable and “disposable” enough. “Buy a robot and upgrade it forever* (5 years) with newer models (sold separately)”, at least until the planned hardware obsolescence that the “interface has changed to support newer hardware, so you’ll need to upgrade (again) to use the latest features”.

The plans basically write themselves.

Land disturbance and rainfall/runoff/watershed considerations are literally part of the permit processes for any building?

My 2 cents is that it’s more about market manipulation (by proxy) than anything. What happens if you convince consumers AI is bad and they shouldn’t approve small datacenters, is the next step regulations? Businesses (primary target) will still use it, people probably will too despite calling datacenters and AI bad. Then model regulations are the next logical target. And who will be regulated? The effect is exactly what OpenAI and Anthropic have been looking for.

How many of X/Amazon/Google/Anthropic/OpenAI data centers have been blocked? I’m going to bet that number is close to zero for any important projects they were planning, likely because they were approved before the real regulation pushes started.

Both sides are getting played with the same song that ends in AI regulations, which is bad for people and good for profits.

It’s all strategy and theater so people can find alternative cause to latch onto that can be steered so it doesn’t really hurt the big players but will ultimately lead to more regulations (and thus more profits).

The copyright office’s guidance is that prompts are covered by copyright, it is the output of an LLM that one cannot claim ownership of.

They are meant to be sharp like an axe (high angle), not sharp like a knife (low angle). They aren’t supposed to be blunt like a butter knife. Dull blades damage the grass.

Exactly. If someone says, “I’m running to the grocery and McDonald’s drive-thru,” no one assumes they are sharing a drive-thru…

I have to agree in that, generally, people care in the same way they care on TT/Insta/etc, which is to say that any time they don’t know it’s AI they simply don’t care and will view/be amazed/laugh/share it. Until someone says “AI”, and then suddenly all those things they like magically become negative for some people.

It often has less to do with the content, and more to do with personal preferences. As one person told me, “Why do I care? I still thought it was funny.”

The difference is those types of communities tend to share similarly strong personal preferences about AI. It’s a bit like saying, “I joined a math community but no one wanted to talk about my diet and workout routines.”

Wouldn’t work for me for about a couple weeks so I just stopped using reddit. Worked today when I tried again. I always use private tabs because I don’t like cookies/tracking across sites.

Isn’t this an AI lab that also just happened to release a model? Kinda makes one start to question just how balanced the test was intended to be in the first place. Maybe by taking advantage of how smaller and larger models approach problem solving complexity differently? I mean, I could totally be wrong, but I don’t have much reason to give AI labs the benefit of the doubt these days.

Plain water can cut through aluminum and other thin metals at pressure, and human skin probably isn’t harder than that, but that’s a good clarification for those who are unaware of the additives commonly used for harder materials like steel/thick aluminum/etc. and it was my mistake to say steel originally. Thanks for pointing it out.