root_axis

That's "just" improvement, not recursive self improvement.

> I’d say this is fortunate because if llms could do the latter, rsi would be immediate.

It doesn't follow that because a model could improve the capabilities of a model many orders of magnitude smaller, that it could then recursively improve it's own capabilities. There's also a conservation of information issue with the idea.

So if that's AGI then what should we call the the thing that can learn from its environment unsupervised like a human or a dog.

That's definitely true, but only to a certain point, after a while it becomes too monotonous to dig around in chests building and combining stuff in an ad hoc manner. LLMs have no problem with that kind of repetitive minutia though.

Yes, the insane hardware requirements make it totally impractical - that's why I say "turn based" because turn based games would at least allow for a practical gameplay experience even with remote LLM APIs.

LLMs could be interesting geopolitical roleplayers if instructed to faithfully assume the leadership traits or cultural biases of the their intended role, especially in games with expressive diplomacy systems like Stellaris or Europa Universalis. It could also make the diplomacy experience a lot richer because the LLM is able to interpret ligusitic tone and other verbal cues. The modern diplomacy experience is basically just a dialog tree with stats and dice rolls attached to it.

SOTA LLMs would probably be fun opponents in turn based 4x.

> Robots: they're just like us!

Hah I dunno, I think most human players wouldn't find that very fun and would instead take that as an opportunity to refactor the factory for optimized performance (i.e. the core gameplay loop)

It's just easier to do manual stuff when the complexity of scaling the automation becomes cognitively demanding. A new player does mostly everything manually while experienced players have a natural intuition for planning and scaling the automation.

Current flavor of the week variant of OpenClaw "feels useful". Now that's an endorsement.

My frustration doesn't matter to anyone except me.

They are still hanging into the false belief that software quality matters to anyone besides good developers.

The popular media is driving the discourse around these topics, nobody is interested in the arbitrary definitions of anonymous randos on niche internet forums.

> inference is profitable

People keep repeating this, but it is only remotely close to true if you evaluate inference in a vacuum without any of the other supporting costs to facilitate that capability.

Just a few years ago people were saying the same thing about WeWork: "leasing is profitable, the unit economics of individual locations is net positive", and yet...

> They are going to college to increase their earning potential, and that’s about it

If we accept the narrative that LLMs can defeat the incentive structure of course work as a concept, it raises the question of if college will continue to raise earning potential for much longer.

Not exactly a trillion dollar business.

> The naysayers are like the people that said this little internet thing wasn’t going anywhere.

The same rhetorical tactic was used to diminish blockchain critics.

I don't necessarily object to your definitions, but the most widely used one in the popular media describes an AI that is so intelligent that it can trivially wrest control of the world away from humans - that's the definition I was referring to.

It gets downvoted because it's a common trope that is explicitly impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Except Starlink won't hesitate to censor you as well as the Ukrainians are discovering.

It would absolutely be a phase change in practical utility, but it still wouldn't be "super intelligence".

> If you think that this states what the difference and what the consequences are (in your mind), I don't know what to tell you

I'm satisfied with the reasoning as stated. If you can't grasp why a social media ban and refusing to ship a letter are two completely different scenarios with respect to free speech, I can't elucidate it any further. Perhaps you should take your own advice about using an LLM to understand the point.

> "GDPR was given AS AN EXAMPLE. I never suggested it "confers access

You gave it as an example of entitlements, but I pointed out that it doesn't entitle you to anything that you don't already own. Unlike your own data, you don't own a voice on a social media platform, hence why the example doesn't work.

> For what? You know laws can change, don't you?

It doesn't matter that the laws can change. You have no idea if or how they might change, so that observation does not contribute anything to the discussion.

> a massive difference [what difference?]

The differences are listed in detail in my first reply to you, plain as day for anyone to see. The rhetorical tactic of repeating "what differences" doesn't change that. I suggest you actually read what I wrote or work on your reading comprehension.

> Do you really want to get into the semantics of "entitlement" vs "right"

You're the one focusing on semantics in order to avoid acknowledging the substantive differences between personal data rights and guaranteed access to social media platforms.

> What's even "your data"? Are the posts you write not "your data

Correct. The posts you write are your data, but GDPR doesn't confer access to a social media platform, only control over your data. You are deliberately conflating data rights with impunity from being banned

> just because the law is a certain way today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be

Your personal opinion about what the law should be is irrelevant.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure why anyone would prefer that over a typical non-generative honypot.

> if you've ever heard of GDPR, but that's one example of things you are entitled to when using a "privately owned platform for free"

GDPR is not an "entitlement", its regulation governing how sites can operate with your data, it doesn't entitle you to service.

> The question here is what is a "legal criteria"

You don't have to agree with the legal criteria, but there is no question as to whether it's legal to arbitrarily ban users based on the content of their posts.

> Pointing out that there's a "massive difference" but never explaining what the difference is and how it affects the validity of the comparison

I went into great detail to explain why the analogy is bad, it's up to you if you want to acknowledge it. This isn't 2016, the absurd framing that tries to pretend that you are entitled access to social media platforms on the basis of free speech is tired and obviously wrong.

The trope of superficially likening every aspect of LLMs to humans is specious and lazy.

Your analogy is totally ridiculous.

First of all, there's a massive difference between transporting a private package from point A to point B vs hosting someone's speech on a privately owned platform and broadcasting that speech through a privately owned network, with wider consequences that do not come into play when dealing with private correspondences between parties.

Next, paying a fee to a private company to ship your package confers certain obligations about what you are entitled to, when you are utilizing a privately owned platform for free, you are not entitled to anything.

Finally, a private company is certainly within their rights to refuse to ship your package based on an any legal criteria they choose.

You've erected a strawman. The argument was not "free speech doesn't apply to companies", it was the exact opposite, i.e. a company's prerogative to control speech on their platform comes downstream of their own free speech rights. This remains true today and the article does not argue otherwise.

> As far as whether we have it, no in the US we don't have it today as certain speech is still made illegal

Right, like everywhere on the planet, hence why I ask if you're saying it doesn't exist. It sounds like your answer is yes.

This will never be worth the risk. Every plumbing job is a unique challenge, you can't just spin up 10000 agents to brute force your way to a correctly cut pipe, one mistake and you've destroyed a house or office.