willmarch

Your last sentence: "That is something that AI can never do on its own."

Never say never...

You didn't really answered my question. Why is it important to you to know that there is a human on the other side of things? You just restated what your preference is without giving the 'why' of the preference, which is what I'm curious about.

Are you suggesting we should move people from safe conditions to unsafe conditions simply because you don't like the length of time they have been in safe conditions?

For me personally, the conditions should be as safe or safer than the current conditions under which a person resides before considering removal of protective status, or else it would be cruel and inhumane to move them (to worse conditions).

I think preventing unnecessary human suffering should be the number one concern, do you not?

I don't think length of time is the rational indicator of whether or not the status is still necessary, the present conditions within the country would be the rational indicator, yes?

There is no problem if it is done for rational reasons and in a fair/unbiased way, but if it is done for irrational reasons (xenophobia, racisms, bigotry, etc) and in unfair/biased way then that is a major problem; the motivations and methods matter.

Why?

Why?

Why should people give up their right to free expression and being secure in their papers simply because you have voluntarily given up that right in advance?

Isn’t it only doxxing when you publish the information?

Why?

It’s more that they remove the spine of the book to more quickly, accurately, and easily scan through the pages. The book’s structural integrity is destroyed in the scanning process which is why they have to discard them when they are done.

Did you intervene or did Claude Code wait for your confirmation?

Those are two vastly different things.

Signed up and submitted a test model. Now the real training begins!

Pretty neat! I'm considering entering some models. How long will you be running these competitions?

First off, there is no accepted definition or test for consciousness. The concept is something we cannot prove even exists (outside of magical or imprecise, human-centric definitions).

Second, there is no common definition of thinking that requires consciousness as a prerequisite (that seems to be a false/invalid statement you're making to try to gloss over accepted definitions for thinking/intelligence that describe/fit AI agents well).

And third, if we can't prove consciousness even in animal species close to humans (or even other humans) in cognitive abilities, then you cannot in good faith (being honest about what we know or don't know empirically) say that an LLM Is not conscious (and the same goes for an LLM thinking or having intelligence).

It is more likely that humans made up a term (consciousness) to try to separate human intellect from that of other animals (for veiled religious and mystical reasons, along with concepts like "the soul") and now people are falling back into that flawed definition in new quasi-religious debates around AI (like the debate around evolution previously) that challenge our deeply held (but flawed) beliefs/opinions around our understanding of our own abilities and our incessant need to feel special/supreme in the universe so we don't have to come to terms with hard realities and nuanced understandings about the reality in which we live.

You just completely ignored the two words being discussed: "thinking" and "intelligence"

Can you explain to me how a Millennium Problem gets solved without any thinking or intelligence?

If someone's opinion is illogical and clearly incorrect (not based in facts or in reality) it is not valid and doesn't not have to be given any serious consideration in a disagreement. Personal opinions are subordinate to facts and reality.

"you can solve NS without thinking."

What?!

The constant goalpost moving and redefining of "thinking" and "intelligence" is simply unbelievable at this point

Sad.

Which is what?

I appreciate the references but I'm guessing they don't fully support the claims you made above, at least not as strongly as you're making them seem.

While they talk about egalitarianism and resisting domineering members, and various organizational structures, they don't establish that people followed "correct" individuals or that violence increases with increased population growth/agriculture/weapons.

I think I'm safe to say that there is plenty of evidence for violence that predates agriculture and modern society, even if agriculture and nation-states increased the scale and visibility of such violence overall.

I think replacing "nasty, brutish, and short" with its opposite "noble savage" ideal is probably just as mistaken of a projection from literature. Human nature doesn't seem to change much throughout history, tools might just make that violence more efficient and more visible.

I don't think your thesis is fully wrong, but I don't think it is fully right either, which was my point in pushing back against the earlier statements you made.

I guess we'll find out soon enough...

Your child never messed up en passant (or had trouble understanding it in a real game), castled through or into a check, didn't see a discovered check after moving a piece, never got confused by how stalemate works?

...and mistakes like not seeing discovered checks, castling into check, trying to castle out of check, castling through a check, missing checks when promoting a piece, misunderstanding how stalemate works, etc?

If you compared a human after hundreds of games to a SOTA LLM that was also trained on the output of hundreds of chess games that it played, I suspect you would notice similar improvements.