willmarch

Your last sentence: "That is something that AI can never do on its own."

Never say never...

You didn't really answered my question. Why is it important to you to know that there is a human on the other side of things? You just restated what your preference is without giving the 'why' of the preference, which is what I'm curious about.

"Haiti is extremely dangerous due to rampant crime, including kidnappings and gang violence, particularly in areas like Port-au-Prince. The U.S. State Department advises against all travel to Haiti because of these severe security risks."

I have friends from Haiti that are currently on the TPS program and hear directly from them about conditions, so your attempts at naivety and ludicrous accusations are not welcome in a serious discussion.

Are you suggesting we should move people from safe conditions to unsafe conditions simply because you don't like the length of time they have been in safe conditions?

For me personally, the conditions should be as safe or safer than the current conditions under which a person resides before considering removal of protective status, or else it would be cruel and inhumane to move them (to worse conditions).

I think preventing unnecessary human suffering should be the number one concern, do you not?

I don't think length of time is the rational indicator of whether or not the status is still necessary, the present conditions within the country would be the rational indicator, yes?

There is no problem if it is done for rational reasons and in a fair/unbiased way, but if it is done for irrational reasons (xenophobia, racisms, bigotry, etc) and in unfair/biased way then that is a major problem; the motivations and methods matter.

Why?

Why?

Why should people give up their right to free expression and being secure in their papers simply because you have voluntarily given up that right in advance?

Isn’t it only doxxing when you publish the information?

Why?

It’s more that they remove the spine of the book to more quickly, accurately, and easily scan through the pages. The book’s structural integrity is destroyed in the scanning process which is why they have to discard them when they are done.

Did you intervene or did Claude Code wait for your confirmation?

Those are two vastly different things.

Signed up and submitted a test model. Now the real training begins!

Pretty neat! I'm considering entering some models. How long will you be running these competitions?

First off, there is no accepted definition or test for consciousness. The concept is something we cannot prove even exists (outside of magical or imprecise, human-centric definitions).

Second, there is no common definition of thinking that requires consciousness as a prerequisite (that seems to be a false/invalid statement you're making to try to gloss over accepted definitions for thinking/intelligence that describe/fit AI agents well).

And third, if we can't prove consciousness even in animal species close to humans (or even other humans) in cognitive abilities, then you cannot in good faith (being honest about what we know or don't know empirically) say that an LLM Is not conscious (and the same goes for an LLM thinking or having intelligence).

It is more likely that humans made up a term (consciousness) to try to separate human intellect from that of other animals (for veiled religious and mystical reasons, along with concepts like "the soul") and now people are falling back into that flawed definition in new quasi-religious debates around AI (like the debate around evolution previously) that challenge our deeply held (but flawed) beliefs/opinions around our understanding of our own abilities and our incessant need to feel special/supreme in the universe so we don't have to come to terms with hard realities and nuanced understandings about the reality in which we live.

You just completely ignored the two words being discussed: "thinking" and "intelligence"

Can you explain to me how a Millennium Problem gets solved without any thinking or intelligence?

If someone's opinion is illogical and clearly incorrect (not based in facts or in reality) it is not valid and doesn't not have to be given any serious consideration in a disagreement. Personal opinions are subordinate to facts and reality.

"you can solve NS without thinking."

What?!

The constant goalpost moving and redefining of "thinking" and "intelligence" is simply unbelievable at this point

Sad.

Which is what?

I appreciate the references but I'm guessing they don't fully support the claims you made above, at least not as strongly as you're making them seem.

While they talk about egalitarianism and resisting domineering members, and various organizational structures, they don't establish that people followed "correct" individuals or that violence increases with increased population growth/agriculture/weapons.

I think I'm safe to say that there is plenty of evidence for violence that predates agriculture and modern society, even if agriculture and nation-states increased the scale and visibility of such violence overall.

I think replacing "nasty, brutish, and short" with its opposite "noble savage" ideal is probably just as mistaken of a projection from literature. Human nature doesn't seem to change much throughout history, tools might just make that violence more efficient and more visible.

I don't think your thesis is fully wrong, but I don't think it is fully right either, which was my point in pushing back against the earlier statements you made.

I guess we'll find out soon enough...

Your child never messed up en passant (or had trouble understanding it in a real game), castled through or into a check, didn't see a discovered check after moving a piece, never got confused by how stalemate works?

...and mistakes like not seeing discovered checks, castling into check, trying to castle out of check, castling through a check, missing checks when promoting a piece, misunderstanding how stalemate works, etc?

If you compared a human after hundreds of games to a SOTA LLM that was also trained on the output of hundreds of chess games that it played, I suspect you would notice similar improvements.

This still feels more like an opinion than facts/proof. I was hoping for actual cited papers or studies, it feels like you just reiterated what you said above but adding "In anthropology..."

The only way to master anything is lots of trial and error. Coaches and teachers can help guide you towards more focused trial and error paths but the student still has to do the lessons and put in the work of learning, and learning only truly happens through doing.

Humans are not perfect and make mistakes in learning even when they have memorized the rules. A simple example is new players will often move a piece, exposing their king to check, and a more experienced player must point out to them that they have made an illegal move (because a new player often has not encoded that pattern for looking for exposed checks because they're more focused on how the pieces move, not what that piece exposes.)

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

So your brother tried to make illegal moves while learning the game and it took your brother hundreds of games to get to be a decent player? I don't see how this contradicts anything I said...

Reading can kickstart the process, but you can also make random moves guided by some sort of system (such as a computer GUI) or learn by watching other players play. The overall point is that you learn through observation and lots of trial and error (whether you are a human or a computer). And beginners in chess often make illegal moves even after learning the rules, it's fairly common.

It feels like you're trying to say that humans never make illegal moves while learning chess, which doesn't match with my experience. I'm trying to understand your overall point.

That has not been my experience with new players, they regularly make invalid or incorrect moves even after detailed instructions especially in novel situations.