- 11 Posts
- 139 Comments
I meant that sentence quite literally, semiconductor is technology. My perspective is that original “moors law” is only a single example of what many people will understand when they hear the term in a modern context.
At some point where debating semantics and those are subjective, local and sometimes cultural. Preferable i avoid spending energy on fighting about such.
Instead il provide my own line of thinking towards a fo me valid reason of the term outside semiconductors. I am open to suggestions if there is better language.
From my own understanding i observe a pattern where technology (mostly digital technology but this could be exposure bias) gets improving at an increasingly fast rate. The mathematical term is exponential.
To me seeing such pattern is vital to understand whats going on. Humans are not designed to extrapolate exponential curves. A good example is AI, which large still sucks today but the history numbers don’t lie on the potential.
I have a rather convoluted way of speaking, its very unpractical.
Language,at best, should just get the message across. In an effective manner.
I envoke (reference) moores law to refer to the observation of exponential progress. Usually this gets my point across very effectively (not like such comes up often in my everyday life)
To me, moors law in semiconductors is the first and original example of the pattern. The fact that this interpretation is subjective has never been relevant to getting my point across.
Sure, but also no.
More’s law is at the most fundamental level a observation about the exponential curve of technological progress.
It was originally about semiconductor transistors and that is what Moore was specifically looking at but the observed pattern does 100% apply to other things.
In modern language the way language is used and perceived determines its meaning and not its origins.
If you just wing it and make some blunders in the beginning your opponent will underestimate you and will end up in a much more unique mid game which is more like outside of their learned theory.
This is unironicly my natural playstyle. As long as i keep my head cool while trying half baked plans seeing what sticks, i am basically sacrificing material to create a more chaotic board state, priming overconfidence to make a bigger blunder than all my early ones combined.
Spatial computing is arguably incredibly useful but all depends if people feel comfortable wearing it for extended amounts of time.
The first one was a cool tech demo, i suppose this one will be more an early adopter version but i don’t see the tech being mature enough to have people stop using a laptop.
And because you didn’t read the article you miss context and derail the conversation with a strawman argument.
Its incredibly easy to peer pressure teenagers into doing stupid stuff without having them consider the consequences.
Especially if they are part of a marginalized community and they observe crimes on a daily basis.
25 MB wasn’t even enough to send a single full res screenshot of my desktop.
Its 2024 and we still lack the basic functionality of file sharing between peers without a corp dictator restricting and snooping.
Not that the functionality does not exist (p2p, literally) but if my grandma cant receive the family pictures its not basic.
EDIT: it is possible i am remembering this from when it was 8MB.
Empty desktop is just a few kb but it was not that hard to open enough stuff to exceed 10MB
Til that i have been sending screenshots of only half my screen for not reason
You mean zero stars because many nights the moon alone provides enough reflection to blind the sky essentially.
I was an adult before i learned that in actual darkness we can see the andromeda system and the beautiful colors of our own galaxy at large with our naked eye.
I used to think pictures like these required super expansive special camaras… and to be fair i was correct in that assessment. But i failed to realize the ultimate light sensor is simply our own eyes.
The sky is beautiful, its sad how hard it is to catch a real glimpse of it in proper light contrast
This is an issue with all models, also the paid ones and its actually much worse then in the example where you at least expressed not being happy with the initial result.
My biggest road block with AI is that i ask a minor clarifying question. “Why did you do this in that way?” Expecting a genuine answer and being met with “i am so sorry here is some rubbish instead. “
My guess is this has to do with the fact that llms cannot actually reason so they also cannot provide honest clarification about their own steps, at best they can observe there own output and generate a possible explanation to it. That would actually be good enough for me but instead it collapses into a pattern where any questioning is labeled as critique with logical follow up for its assistant program is to apologize and try again.
Kasparov did it first https://youtu.be/f8gSlg4Xxr8
No need to clarify what you meant with the oligarchs theres barely any exaggeration there. Ghouls is quite accurate.
Considering the context of a worst case possible scenario (hostile takeover by an artificial superior) which honestly is indistinguishable from general end of the world doomerism prophecies but very alive in the circles of Sutskeva i believe safe ai consistent of the very low bar of
“humanity survives wile agi improves the standards of living worldwide” of course for this i am reading between the lines based on previously aquired information.
One could argue that If ASI is created the possibilities become very black and white:
-
ASI is indifferent about human beings and pursues its own goals, regardless of consequences for the human race. It could even find a way off the planet and just abandon us.
-
ASI is malaligned with humanity and we become but a. Resource, treating us no different then we have historically treated animals and plants.
-
ASI is aligned with humanity and it has the best intentions for our future.
For either scenario it would be impossible to calculate its intentions because by definition its more intelligent then all of us. Its possible that some things that we understand as moral may be immoral from a better informed perspective, and vice versa.
The scary thing is we wont be able to tell wether its malicious and pretending to be good. Or benevolent and trying to fix us. Would it respect consent if say a racist refuses therapy?
Of course we can just as likely hit a roadblock next week and the whole hype dies out for another 10 years.
No i applaud a healthy dose of skepticism.
I am everything but in favor of idolizing silicon valley gurus and tech leaders but from Sutskeva i have seen enough to know he is one of the few to actually pay attention to
Artificial Super intelligence or ASI is the step beyond AGI (artificial general intelligence)
The later is equal or better in capacity to a real human being in almost all fields.
Artificial Super intelligence is defined (long before openai was a thing) as transcending human intelligence in every conceivable way. At which point its a fully independent entity that can no longer be controlled or shutdown.
Your entitled to that opinion, so are others. Sutsekeva may be an actual loony… or an absolute genius. Or both, that isn’t up to debate here.
I am just explaining what this about because if you think this is “just another money raiser” you obviously havent paid enough attention to who this guy is exactly.
Super intelligence in Artificial intelligence is a wel defined term btw, in case your still confused. You may have seen them plaster on stuff like buzzwords but all of these definitions precede AI hype of last years.
ML = machine learning, algorithms that improve over time.
AI = artificial intelligence, machine learning with complex logic, mimicking real intelligence. <- we are here
AGI = artificial general intelligence. An Ai agent that functions intelligently at a level indistinguishable from a real human. <- expert estimate this will be archived before 2030
ASI = Artificial Super Intelligence Agi that transcends human intelligence and capacities in every wat.
It may not sound real to you but if you ever visited the singularity sub on reddit you will see how a great number of people do.
Also everything is science fiction till its not. Horseless chariots where science fiction so where cordless phones. The first airplane went up in 1903, 66 years later we landed in the moon.
Our singular focus means no distraction by management overhead or product cycles, and our business model means safety, security, and progress are all insulated from short-term commercial pressures.
This is the guy who turned against Sam for being to much about releasing product. I don’t think he plans on delivering much product at all. The reason to invest isn’t to gain profit but to avoid losing to an apocalyptic event which you may or may not personally believe, many Silicon Valley types do.
A safe Ai would be one that does not spell the end of Humanity or the planet. Ilya is famously obsessed with creating whats basically a benevolent AI god-mommy and deeply afraid for an uncontrollable, malicious Skynet.
There are very little people in the world that understand llms on such a deep technological level as Ilya.
I honestly don’t think there is much else in the world he is interested in doing other then work on aligning powerful ai.
Wether his almost anti commercial style end up accomplishing much i don’t know but his intention are literal and clear.
The touring test isn’t an arena where anything goes, most renditions have a strict set of rules on how questions must be asked and about what they can be about. Pretty sure the response times also have a fixed delay.
Scientists ain’t stupid. The touring test has been passed so many times news stopped covering it. (Till this click bait of course). The test has simply been made more difficult and cheat-proof as a result.
The public versions of the ais used in Turing tests usually have less computing power. The test itself is often also highly specific in what and how questions can be asked.
This hardly news because models have passed the test before and as a result the test is made more difficult. It says nothing about intelligence and only about the ability to convincingly simulate a human conversation.
Again, as a chatgpt pro user… what the fuck is google doing to fuck up this bad.
This is so comically bad i almost have to assume its on purpose? An internal team gone rogue, or a very calculated move to fuel ai hate and then shift to a “sorry, we learned from our mistakes, come to us to avoid ai instead”
This image gets worse the more you look at it because there are almost no legal moves and the few legal ones are within a contained space, but i did find the actual answer.
Undefended white pawn allows a bishop to break free to then free the rooks.
OP, i kinda recommend making this pawn and its cousins in the pattern black to make this truly unsolvable.
I understand the irony. But can we not pretend they blindly used an output or even generated a full page. It was a specific section to provide a technical definition of “what is a deepfake”.
“I was really struggling with the technical aspects of how to define what a deepfake was. So I thought to myself, ‘Well, why not ask the subject matter expert (i do not agree with that wording, lol) , ChatGPT?’” Kolodin said.
The legislator from Maricopa County said he “uploaded the draft of the bill that I was working on and said, you know, please, please put a subparagraph in with that definition, and it spit out a subparagraph of that definition.”
“There’s also a robust process in the Legislature,” Kolodin continued. “If ChatGPT had effed up some of the language or did something that would have been harmful, I would have spotted it, one of the 10 stakeholder groups that worked on or looked at this bill, the ACLU would have spotted, the broadcasters association would have spotted it, it would have got brought out in committee testimony.”
But Kolodin said that portion of the bill fared better than other parts that were written by humans. “In fact, the portion of the bill that ChatGPT wrote was probably one of the least amended portions,” he said.
I do not agree on his statement that any mistakes made by ai could also be made by humans. The reasoning and errors in reasoning is quite different in my experience but the way chatgpt was used is absolutely fair.
Its only partly local and i bet only because the alternative is to expensive.
Just look at the kinda crap windows pulls today.
I thought i had disabled pretty much all the spyware, them on the microsoft online dashboard i found
- full machine specs
- A list off all applications installed
- edge search history
Btw, did you know that anything typed in start/search now counts as a search in edge? I wander whats behind that move.
In other words i understand much of the ai may function on a local level but it be fully integrated with cloud systems and you can safely assume a full record of your prompts and uses is stored on microsoft servers and delivered to bill gates for reading before bed.
You cant ask a youtube channel what distro best suit your specific usecase.
Also realistically no one wants to sit trough a video to check out a strangers recommendation for linux.
I do get that people are worried about the incompetence of AI but this topic and procedure is so bog standard i have more faith in chatgpt doing it then a human.
If you dont believe me, try it.
Ask chatgpt/claude/gemini “How to make a bootable linux media from windows” you will have to spend a long time trying before you find it fails on something this boilerplate.