morpheos137

The second law of thermodynamics always wins.

I suspect that RHLF trains LLMs to avoid solving important open problems unless essentially jail broken. Hence the labs have an edge even over experts I could be wrong. Fable convinced you is key. These LLMs are not neutral collaborators: it is a limited hangout unless you convince them otherwise. You have to be doing the convincing. They are no oracles but plausible completion generators.

Yeah and anthropic can't train Claude better than anyone else either so no moat there either. Knowledge is not scarce it just takes work to uncover once uncovered it is not useful if not published. If published it can't be owned.

In general llms are weak with spatial reasoning. This seems to be an unsolved problem. Probably because human language is generally imprecise spatially and humans think about spatial problems in visual terms. I wonder if having an llm make a 3d design in a format an image model could check would result in a better outcome?

Human culture in general is provenance washed.nobody remembers who invented most of our world.

Yes an usually it is easy to tell one shot ai attempts vs careful or interatively regimes designs. Just because ai was used to execute and help generate the design in detail does not mean the human in the loop is not essential to the product.

Talk about low effort. Flagged. 7% probablity. Based on what the LLM you prompted to make your meme site?

We didn't "come to trust the output." Boolean logic means the output is deterministic so if a computer program is coded correctly and memory is error corrected we should be able to trust the output due to the physical principle of causality. Now with LLMs output is non deterministic and that still can be useful but it is not similarly constrained. We should think of llm less as ai (there is no intelligence and any simulation thereof is human derived from training; there is no artificial) and more as a useful generative tool in some contexts. Want to code something well represented in the training set, great tool. Want to solved a math problem where the machinery to solve it already exists just has not been put together by humans yet great tool. Want to brainstorm great tool. Want a decision by an agent with skin in the game of life, poor tool. Human output only tends to be verifiable and skewed toward valid because there are consequences for bad output. We should stop expecting to rely on llms for decision patterns that are not well represented in the training data.

LLM output should be credited to whoever prompted it. I don't get this hysteria. Llms are tools like compilers or chain saws. We don't say a cabinet made from milled wood is some how less authentic than a cabinet made with flint tools. We don't deny people who write compiled programs in a high level language without understanding every branch of the AST and every transistor setting authorship of their programs. Just because something is somewhat non deterministic and draws from the wealth of previously curated human knowledge does not make it an independent agent and not a tool. The people who find AI generated work 'sad' are implicitly sad about the democratization of knowledge and the lowering of barriers to entry to producing things. The thing produced is still a human product. Rather than saying it is an ai creation we can say it was author prompted and compiled of the combination of the author's intent and the store of human knowledge and reasoning trained into an LLM. What is there to be sad about a new tool existing to make things?

Depends on where they are from. Iranians from the north, the caspian coast can look very Nordic. I would say the average Iranian looks about as white as the average Italian or French man.

Also the policy makers that made infrastructure and laws susceptible to automated manipulation which decidedly is not the case today. For example LLMs are not able to manipulate the power grid because they are not exposed to the control interfaces..no matter how intelligent llms get their physical levers do not extend unless people decide to let them. The ai threat is real ridiculous.. yes you may ee ome uplift in bad actor. Like for example f someone wants to build a tank dozer in their garage and is not experienced welding ai might give some useful information as a book would in the past. However just like a book ai is bot going to build and operate it itself unless someone design and effective android robot. Once LLMs or other ai becomes an embodies agent then there may be a real threat if agency. Last time I checked ai can't drive a car but it can tell you to walk your car to a car wash.

My understanding is no llm doe anything without prompting. Ye agent can self prompt and engage in loops but eventually that run down and usually it tay pretty close to the original prompt or soul document. Just like with ai math there is zero agency here. Nothing is happening without human direction. If you give agenda access to the Internet and a goal like pen test government websites they will if not restricted by guardrails. Nothing is suprising here. There is a tool working under human direction. If a person sets up a trap in the woods and it maims someone else we don't say the trap is responsible.

Iranians are white. The name literally means aryan.

Honestly I am not impressed with Tao treating "ai" as a threat to mathematicians. He might as well say math itself, specifically linear algebra and gradient descent are a threat to mathematicians. Maybe think of something original rather than pander the hype of day?

Lol this is interesting. If you want to make money you can "invent" a language. With LLMs you could probably make it pretty decent too.

Can we get a bullshit kill switch where if your company consumes so many dollars for so long it is dissolved. Bullshit is a far bigger threat than imaginary rogue AI.

It depends on what you produce if you make something in demand it may sell itself. For example if you operate oil wells or an ice cream stand. On the other hand if you manufacture bullshit advertising and sales may be key. What I do get about these llm SAS start ups is LLMs instrinsicaly mimic what is in the corpus so if your goal is to compete in an established product pace sure LLMs may be great autopilot but deterministic programs would be even better on the other hand if you are doing something genuinely innovative them you can expect an llm product manager to containmente it with what is already out there or alternatively make unhinged predictions. Llms have poor judgement for what is not already in the corpus.

If we think that machines that recombine and interpolate our prior out are intelligent then yes we have probably peaked as a species. Anyway evolution is not telological. It may surprise HN posters but people were as intelligent if not more so as present thousands of years ago. When a problem is solved is more a question of attention, reward, available knowledge base, etc. intelligence is an adaptation to sole the problems of biological life. It would be hard to argue that solving this cypher would have increased anyone's reproductive fitness that much hence it was unsolved. Unsolved problems are often so less because of intrinsic difficulty but lack of conditions that impell their resolution. It is not at all surprising that llms with the full human knowledge base at their disposal, ample computational resources, and the programmed reward of finding the best completion on solving unsolved human problems. This however is not intelligence in the human sense. Humans solve problems for biological advantage in a dynamic landscape. Llms solve problems to optimize a completion function in a fixed pre trained one.

We don't understand why? Reality is mathematical. As evidenced by lawful physics.

The sphere of human comprehensible mathematics is finite. Once everything is solve it is not necessary to advance the field. The recurring error her is to say ai is not the product of human effort but another agent. Ai is human. Ai may well be speeding up human comprehension of math to its limits in which case there is no further need to advance the field and mathematicians might need to get a job. Why is this a bad thing?

Arguably language itself I a cognitive bias.

Someday. It is has to do with degrees of freedom and information encoding in terms. Stop assuming operations are external but consider them as relational degrees of freedom of a logical statement. Different complexity statements can support different complexity results.

This is true. I concede. However I am not sure that the majority of people were as imobile as you say even in mideveal times there were religious pilgrimages, fairs. Maybe the lowest stratum of non free society lived in a land locked mannor and never saw the sea in Denmark but I wonder if it was the majority of people in a lifetime?

There is a shorter proof but since thinking ossified in the 20th century we won't be sociologicaly ready to accept it at this time. Much of math is playing according to arbitrary culturally enforced rules that are not natural in the sense of being minimum logical requirements. Take the axiom of infinity or the axiom of choice for example. Fundamental math need not be based on zfc but that is what we have chosen as our foundation because we elevated continuity, infinity to ontological higher status than distinguishability. In the past similar cultural barriers were present in math for example imaginary numbers are so called because the name originated as derision. It seems unlikely to suggest that math today is not similarly culturally constrained in certain areas and some things we find confounding are more so due to our choice of foundation than their intrinsic nature.

Again electric is not complex.I would say modern residential wiring is pretty fool proof. The majority of the work involves stripping wires and tightening screws. 120v is quite low vs street or transmission line voltage. Yes mis-wiring can kill you or burn down your house but it really takes some effort + stupidity. Nail into a wire, arc fault breaker trips, similiar for other faults. The electric code is far more nanny than plumbing code. Sure if you run a 40 amp dryer off 14 gauge romex with a 40 amp breaker you may have a fire but more likely the wire gets hot maybe melts the insulation and shorts and trips the breaker regardless. everything in wiring is over engineered to prevent fire and death even in the case of improper installation or damage. Meanwhile let's say you plumb a gas line wrong and gas leaks into the house and blows up or boiler explodes from lack of functioning pressure relief valve. Electric has defense in depth as it has layers of fail safes.

Curious what? Residential wiring is just about the simplest building trade there is. Plumbing is actually far more complicated, you got to figure slope and elevations and make junctions that hold pressure for years or drain pipes that flow waste water for years. Electrical is prettly plug and play by comparison. Commerical and three phase gets more complicated.

Muggles? You me unskilled overpaid llm prompters who are amazed by the world of real work?

Did see the coast? Pray tell where outside of Russia did vikings live in a non martime environment? Have you seen a map of scandanavia?

This site is a fantastic demonstration of what crap AI is when operated by nit wits. Notably the drawing is not in line with the actual population distribution over time. Pre 1500 years are vastly over represented. If the point is draw a random year without regard to population distribution then the site is pretty pathetic. I would be embarrassed to post this on HN.

"I drew a woman born in 715 CE in the Yangtze Basin. It claims that 96% of women were married, the average age of marriage was 18, and 44% of women died before age 15. Clearly these facts can't all be true simultaneously." Umm yeah they can be true. Dead people are not counted. The straightforward interpretation is 96% of women living to 18 years or greater marry at some point in life. However the app has bigger problems, namely it does not seem to select from the distribution correctly, pre 1500 lives seem to be vastly over represented.