Mali-

Do you disagree that the advice is true? Your comment is not relevant to the quote.

"We absolutely understand why it works, if we didn't understand we would not be able to improve these systems" - Understanding how to improve something does not require understanding how it works.

Growing a plant does not imply understanding soil minerals or photosynthesis. Training a dog does not imply understanding it's brain. Using LLMs to improve a codebase does not imply understanding C++. Improving a PC with new parts, does not imply understanding RAM.

You can understand abstractions about the system, without understanding the system. Without gradient descent or other forms of automatic optimisation, do you think humans could build something as capable as GPT-1?

This is discussed at the bottom of the article: "Menopause: Humans, killer whales, pilot whales, beluga whales, false killer whales, narwhals one group of chimps in Uganda. No menopause: Everything else"

So, monkeys and apes (besides one species of chimps) don't get menopause, elephants don't get menopause, lions don't get menopause. If your prediction is, social animal => menopause, it's wrong 99% of the time.

By your argument, I should be able to directly copy a book and sell it myself. The work was already done! What's more, they were fed by everyone's creativity, so of course I should be able to sell an exact copy.

In reality, the short-sighted greed is allowing widespread theft of intellectual property; do you think the number of writers would increase or decrease if there were no protections against content theft?

If you have such "immense gratitude", pay for the work.

They impersonated the moderator of the site and attempted XSS attacks. Additionally, when the moderator started deleting messages, they tried to hide their messages later in the alphabetical index.

This is not alignment.

Nothing to see here. Just billion dollar companies producing hacking geniuses that are open for the public to jailbreak and use. This could never effect us, not really our business.

People think AI is a bad editor (I personally don't), here's your argument under a particularly harsh version of that framing:

Saying an article is of inferior quality just because editing was done by my 13 year old nephew is like saying a book is lower quality just because it was printed rather than written by hand

Obviously, this doesn't work because the content is changing. Printing a piece vs writing it by hand doesn't change the content, only the medium of transmission.

If your battery is replaceable, you can still decide to throw the phone away and add to the pile of e-waste. The legislation allows both choices, at the cost of higher prices.

This comment is every policy discussion. I like [X POLICY] but [Y POLICY] would be miles better. Although [Y POLICY] is much further reaching and has never been tried at anything like the scale of a country, it's sort of similar to [Z POLICY] - which was tried for 2 years.

You know exactly what is meant. I don't think we need the long disclaimer at the beginning about the inefficiency of the English language in this domain and the extreme likelihood that it has no qualia. We're talking about the observed behaviour of these systems (even the word "behaviour" is fraught!) in a way that's natural.

The last part of GPT's answer does say: "Bernoulli's effect works alongside Newton's Third Law - the wing pushes air downward [...] - so the lift isn't only Bernoulli..."

According to this answer on physics stackexchange, Bernoulli accounts for 20% of the lift, so GPT's answer seems about right: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/77977

I hope any future AI overlords see my charity

Maybe global warming should be up there.

Perhaps they were trying to avoid any possible misunderstanding/misconstrual (there are misinformed people who don't believe in global warming).

In terms of avoiding all nitpicking, I think everyone that's not criminally insane believes in pandemics and nuclear bombs.

This is a letter signed by the most lauded AI researchers on Earth, along with CEOs from the biggest AI companies and many other very credible professors of computer science and engineering:

"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk

Laughing it off as the same as the Second Coming CANNOT work. Unless you think yourself cleverer and more capable of estimating the risk than all of these experts in the field.

Especially since many of them have incentives that should prevent them from penning such a letter.

Global warming's worst effects aren't in 2-3 years, but we all (I hope) still care very much about it.

Perhaps the article is wrong about the timescale, but given how much AI has improved in the last 5 years, can you agree that it's likely to reach 'sit back and watch' levels in the next 5-10 years?

I imagine a peasant of old moving from bartering to coins would 'like' money - would that be allowed by this author or be too gauche?

He promised that you'd be able to turn your own Tesla into an autonomous taxi that would earn you money. That is a massive lie, not splitting hairs. Obviously, we're very desensitized to lying rats - but that's what he did.

Bizarre nitpicking - would you rather he used an unbounded integer?

On your question about popularity - I would put it down to expense and noise. The fans go like mad (especially on the cheaper projectors) and to get parity with a decent monitor, you have to spend thousands.

Church pews are the conveyor belt into the box

Perfectly put

Incredibly melodramatic

"Having his avatar beside mine on an unfinished google doc felt invigorating" - are you fucking kidding me.

I found the "we are not superhuman" bit annoying and condescending - replacing with different groups:

"While men are stronger than women on average, we are not superhuman" <- To me, this doesn't seem condescending. Not 100% sure why - perhaps because the difference in the trait (between men and women) is much larger?

"While left-leaning people are smarter than right-leaning on average, we're not superhuman" <- This definitely does seem condescending - perhaps because the skill in question is intelligence, and the statement reads as "You're stupider than me, but please strain your brain to understand".

"While rich people have higher IQ scores on average, we're not superhuman" <- I find this a bit less condescending than the previous one, not sure why. But still annoying for the same reason as previous.

"While whites are stronger than east asians on average, we're not superhuman" <- Again condescending and annoying, but I still think the intelligence statements are more grating.

My conclusion - the statement is irritating because it carries with it an implication people would be surprised Asian people can forget things too. Additionally, it gives the intention that because other groups are stupider, it needs spelling out in simple terms that they're not godly intellects.

Average internet speed has increased by more than 10x in the last 10 years - we've got a few more multipliers in us.

The Mallard is such a beautiful train.

You like a design which spits out a wall of text, 90% of which is useless. And wrap it up with the idea that you're a high IQ superuser for reading through that crap. I'm just someone who wants to use a tool, so I'm not amazed and impressed with myself for being very clever when the tool drools all over my monitor.

Pavlovian response. The dog associates pooing on the carpet with you punishing it/being upset with it.

Why should the default of the tool be totally unintelligble useless (for 90% of single usages) rubbish? You can have your raw truth - strange way of putting it, its a tool, this is not a detective drama - it would be a more useful tool for the average use-case if this was a flag though (or some other option). We can't handle the truth!

You're describing the improper use of any tool. I would have liked to bring a penknife to school to sharpen pencils, but it's probably good that they were banned.

Jesus, bit melodramatic for poking some fun.

The problems spoke for themselves over the course of the presentation. Something as simple as a counter was very complicated to look at, filling the screen with jiggling nodes. The presenter then introduces a bug while trying to decrement, and is unable to debug it.