AIkonoklazt

Clear misrepresentation. He already expressed the futility of LLM scale before, yet here he is, asking to scale to the tune of 7 BILLION... Way past any groups of vertical semis are even going for. Futility of scale + orders of magnitude over cost = clear fraud

I already backed up my argumentation, where's yours? How much is a chip plant or a GPU firm, and is it anywhere near $7T? No. Did he contradict himself? Yep. I don't see anything from you except empty rhetoric. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and what the heck do you mean "you don't see any engineering"? Chip fabrication and LLM machine conditioning (I don't call it "training") ARE engineering. Here's somewhat of an indication of Altman going: "I've not idea what I'm actually planning, except I'll scale it way up and contradict what I've previously said":

The Samster just asked for a whopping 7 billion investor handout: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/sam-altman-wants-to-raise-up-to-7-trillion-thats-uh-a-lot-of-dough/ar-BB1i3ay5 C'mon... This is clearly bullshit. I can see the "plan" from a billion miles away: 1. Raise trillions 2. Pay himself billions 3. Fuck all, laughs in people's faces as expensive house of cards folds after the smoke clears 4. Open golden parachute to the tune of tens if not hundreds of millions ON TOP 5. Maybe even just repeat that same shit again somewhere else afterwards- It's not as if he hasn't done all this failing-upwards crap BEFORE This is as transparent as it gets as far as criminality is concerned. You know how much is a network of chip manufacturing plants? Biden's CHIPS Act is "only" 52 billion, and that's spread across multiple companies. Guess he wants to start up an entirely new multi-trillion dollar semiconductor manufacturing corporation which dwarfs market behemoth Samsung at a "measly" $370 Billion......... https://companiesmarketcap.com/samsung/marketcap/ ...and what's more, this is AFTER he already said that scaling out LLMs don't work! https://www.wired.com/story/openai-ceo-sam-altman-the-age-of-giant-ai-models-is-already-over/ He just contradicted himself. Now, I'm wondering which oil prince in the UAE is gonna fall for that, and what happens once they find out this is a scam.

I don't know when was the first time it was pointed out, but you do have the answer. 8-ball is equivalent of the "demonstration" being asked.

First I want to say that I couldn't take the hawlings of those AI apocalypse crowd too seriously let I burst a cranial vein (I'll explain the above pic in a moment. It's either going to be Ripley or Babylon 5, but I don't think B5 has a direct quote about what's going on the screen). Here's the copy-pasta reply I do whenever I encounter one of those "posts" on LI: Second, who in the world are these so-called "researchers"??? They "don't know why" it behaved the way it did? Did the article misstate things here? Oh come on! It's not "biases" but the training corpus as a whole! They're staring at that fact and it's right in their faces! It's RIGHT HERE (bolded by me): IT MIGHT AS WELL ALSO OUTPUT "NUKE IT FROM ORBIT, IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE" FROM RIPLEY'S LINE IN ALIENS SINCE THAT'S CERTAINLY PART OF THE FICTIONAL CORPUS STORED ON THE INTERNET TOO /screamholler Are they pretending to just "not know," or these "researchers" have no ****ING IDEA how these things work!? Seriously, that's worse than putting ChatGPT to work on medical cases, since even medical fictional works have more of these technical jargon-laden sequences than, say, generic military scenarios that could be anything from Reddit posts or cross-universe Harry Potter fanfics. Of course, that doesn't make it any better even in those cases: https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what-i-found-when-i-asked-chatgpt-to-diagnose-my-patients-7829c375a9da Before I take a big breath, I'm going to question if those "researchers" are researchers at all.

Oh. It's the 8-ball. If "demonstrating a coincidence" was in order, then rolling a die inside a fluid container for the answer would be apt. I'm not. I'm wondering whether I should look into retroactive reporting for the people I've blocked...

Yeah. I've seen old microwaves and air conditioners with the term "AI" on the marketing stickers. ======= In other news, my goodness- What is wrong with Hinton? His take on LLM "hallucinations" is just bad on so many levels. Here's Marcus hitting back at him today: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/deconstructing-geoffrey-hintons-weakest Uh, no... LLM "hallucinations" aren't what human beings do, at all. When people hallucinate, there's still a referent; The hallucinations are all about something, right? How do people have hallucinations about nothing at all? "Describe what you see and hear..." "Oh, nothing." ??? LLMs don't deal with referents. They're "about" nothing specific- They match corresponding signal patterns spread across their whole "neural" nets. The whole reason why those things "hallucinate"/confabulate is because they don't deal with anything specific. Even if you don't buy that explanation at all (...please look at practical examples of adversarial attacks against neural nets if not convinced), there's all these things that Marcus pointed out. Why is the media hyping up Hinton as the "Godfather of AI?" That in itself is a bad take.

it wouldn't be, because you're not trying to make me mad(?) (Really; I want to know which definition people are using because at this point, I don't know.) Okay this is the Cambridge one: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trolling ..."Annoy" would be a rather low threshold, but it would still involve trying, right? Question of the day: Did Hinton just troll Marcus?? https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/deconstructing-geoffrey-hintons-weakest

More headache-inducing mangling of the production of laws, this one is about the EU AI Act. Needless to say, this is going to affect a whole lot more people than the WA legislation. A German lawyer expressed her concerns in an LI post below regarding some very badly-written language in the text, which is set to become law unless something further happens. This is another thing that I've been afraid of: AI anthropomorphism polluting our systems of laws that are supposed to protect human beings. There was a discussion in a response thread following the original post about how technology advocates shouldn't be allowed to write laws instead of legal experts. See the portion I had highlighted in blue. If a law is written badly enough, it can become entirely USELESS- Non-applicable... and that's far from the worst case scenario. Okay, so you can have laws that are a complete waste of time and space, fine; But, how about instances where it's potentially doing harm instead of good? The text is laden with anthropomorphic assumptions, betraying technical ignorance on the matter. If the authoring is indeed done by tech advocates then they're doing a very bad job even at that, not to mention doing anything useful protecting anyone from anything:

You're "helping" by responding and not letting the response be what WAS going to be the last response.

If you're saying anything like "you didn't avoid trolling" then you're indeed using some definition of the term "trolling" that I'm not familiar with. How much sense does the phrase "you didn't avoid trying to piss people off" make? No. Seriously. What the heck, man. Either I tried, or I DIDN'T... and I DIDN'T.

I'll call it tilting at windmills because I didn't try to piss people off I don't know which instance of which thing that's referring to.

Okay. It's fair that you're taking it that way. However, I was making a point with FSM macros. As for the two History Channel image macros, I admit I was making fun of the original poster. I won't make fun of people with image macros anymore. I understand that the point is "no shenanigans unless you're making a point." I'll respect that. However............ People WERE derailing MY machine consciousness thread that I was being dead serious about, but anyhow, I'm shrugging that off now. Thanks.

Absolute insanity, and EXACTLY what I've been afraid of- Corporations shirking their responsibilities by trying to designate their products as AGENTS, thereby putting the liability on MACHINES! What the actual fuck. I can't believe this shit is happening so soon. Didn't think this nightmare would be happening any time soon when I wrote that part near the end of my article about this exact thing. The text of the law is bat shit insane. It's giving a machine LICENSE to drive as OPERATOR. Think about this BS for a moment... Granting machine the right to drive. Who is at fault for an accident? The machine is, officer! /hysterics

I didn't troll. That was the fact. Call it whatever you want. Excuse me? I didn't start "a stock discussion in quantum theory". It was someone else who started the thread. I didn't give it a serious response. I posted pictures of FSM in response to a thread regarding proving something metaphysical, which is nonsense. I made my point of how that was nonsense, using FSM. I don't have to learn that people willingly accuse me of things I didn't do; I know this.

Got this in my email: First, I saw this joke from TheVat from this thread: I thought his squirrel joke was funny, so I laughed at it with a squirrel image macro: ..................and somehow that was "TROLLING." Now I don't know which windmill who was tilting at and I frankly don't give a flip, but unless someone was using some obscure meaning of the term "TROLLING" that I was (as still am) utterly unfamiliar with, there was no "TROLLING." Laughing at someone's joke isn't "TROLLING," and I've no idea where this nonsensical "rebellion" label came from either (again, don't know what they're on about, and don't care either). No one was taking that joke of a topic seriously at that point, and ironically only got serious when some mod got serious about it. I wasn't pooping anyone's good time in this little social club. Call a spade a spade- If you don't like image macros then just say so; Don't accuse me of doing something I didn't do.

...but there is movement. Unless you don't detect movement at all, you still have these intervals that you can characterize as a form of time. Perception doesn't work in instants. If you have any kind of detection, that detection itself contains movement of some sort, otherwise there's no detection at all.

...you own a quantum computer?

(someone else's camera, a bit blurry)

.......but there weren't any chemical substances to undergo any "rapid chemical change or decomposition," so that definition doesn't fit.

Answer is yes

Welp, if you ever show up again I'll give you my opinion...

Hey SC folks, if you still want to be in your seats for the long term then how about not ruling in favor of Trump, because once he tosses the Constitution he'd tell all of you in the judicial branch to take a hike too