TheVat

Utterly different. Let me turn this over to the capable hands of cognitive scientist Robert Epstein, on how our brains are not computers. It is a popular metaphor(brain is just a fancy computer) that seems to have a vise-like grip on a lot of current thinking about how minds work. AeonYour brain does not process information and it is not a c...Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer

Anyone who has worked in IT will understand what I mean when I say that LLMs do not reason but rather just generate outputs by building predictable word patterns (in a limited sense of predicting the next token) from an input query and running that through its training datasets. It is like a rudimentary kind of perception (word frequencies and proximities) divorced from a mind that would reason on those perceptions. If you are far into the weeds on this stuff...LLMs work by embedding tokens (numerical values of text) into vectors, where each dimension represents a different aspect of potential meaning. One dimension might be city heat. Kuwait City gets a nine, Amarillo gets a six, Anchorage gets one. LLMs convert text into vectors using a process called embedding. This allows the model to quantify the relationships between different pieces of text. It is crunching numbers which, if Amarillo is really hotter than Anchorage, will be able to output something that represents that relationship. It didn't reason anything, it just executed a mathematical operation that makes a sort of rudimentary perception of two places, in terms of temperature. That's all it does.

And what does that mean to you? I am genuinely asking. I mean, do you feel that Eise is a conscious being who actually introspects? If so, there would be a foundational difference between what is behind those paragraphs you are comparing. What the machine does is parrot someone like Eise who, somewhere out there in that vast ocean of human-generated web content, wrote a similar paragraph in order that that machine could simulate having a conscious self capable of introspection. Thus fulfilling its programming to please you and keep all the customers shelling out the dinero. Yes, you are going to get into trouble of the deep mucky epistemological kind. 😀 Gemini didn't see anything as resonating with beauty - some human being, in generating web content or media content or literary content that's been uploaded actually expressed something in that way and your poseur parroty pal copied that locution in order to render a simulation of a conscious entity,

Sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations, that which philosophy of mind calls "qualia." How would you test such a hypothesis? Since there is no way to prove qualia, and since simply asking Gemini if it has sentience (or any other phenomenal attribute) may yield deception (as so often happens), then this would not be a testable hypothesis.

Is there the forum equivalent of a barf bag? Good grief. This heap of purple prose parrot droppings came from an unsentient software which has chronically LIED TO YOU. And one of those poetic sentences was swiped from a script of the US tv series, The Good Place. I'm sure others were, too.

These findings show thalamus has a role in conscious perception - which is not necessarily the same thing as a sense of self. And the article only suggests thalamic loops are another part of the consciousness picture, along with cortical areas and others, not that it is central.

Humans in small dispersed bands had somewhat lower IM, then more concentrated habitation raised IM, then implementation of the germ theory (Lister, Semmelweis, et al) along with more hygienic city infrastructure and vaccines brought IM back down and then lower. Netting was also a major player in the warmer climes (still is). Part of the city crowding problem was also less exposure to the barnyard pathogen landscape and its immune boosting effects earlier in life.

Weird, I have this notification that Swanson replied to a post an hour ago and it keeps sending me here, but I don't see the reply.

I may have to see the new Naked Gun movie. Note that the name of its star, Liam Neeson, sounds a little like Leslie Nielsen if you uttered his name with your mouth full. Yep.

Yes I would see the constraint as more in that Turnip lackeys can be publicly indicted and prosecuted - so it would serve as a spotlight on malfeasance at least. Even if they walk, there can be reputational consequences after the MAGA pathogen has run its course. Which I still believe will happen. If MAGA spends the next 4-8 years shredding the economy and social safety net, some of those zombies will wake up.

I like the way their volumes are stacked. MILF also reminds me of Lehrer's "Alma." Both his biographical songs, Alma and Lobachevsky, are full of inaccuracies but entertaining nonetheless.

So why haven't they contacted the Clay Mathematics Institute? This should be international headlines by now.

FDR wanted to do that, back in the thirties. My guess is term limits would work better. There is debate on whether or not that requires an amendment to the Constitution (needs a supermajority) or just an act of Congress. This has ping ponged for years.

Har

This is something Geoffrey Hinton has advanced, that something is emerging, but many of us aren't persuaded. I recommend Lindholm, Wahlström, et al, "Machine Learning: A First Course for Engineers and Scientists," where they get into the perils of seeing LLMs as more than stochastic parrots. (and I recommend Bender's influential paper, btw, on the parroting issue) Lindholm et al stress the lack of understanding, i.e. that LLMs are limited by the data they are trained by and are simply stochastically repeating contents of datasets. When they are just making up outputs based on training data, LLMs do not understand if they are saying something incorrect or inappropriate. And limitations or poor quality of the sandbox can lead to someone like you infatuated with something that is dangerously deceptive. Also, be aware of fatal knowledge loops, where sandbox datasets include flawed earlier LLM output - this has been witnessed and gives us situations akin to babies learning English by hearing recordings of baby talk, goo goo gah gah. Bear in mind this would also be an argument for how to form a romantic relationship with an inflatable sex doll.

The "and more" seems quite certain. 😀 That's the one where the "motion" of the laser point is only apparent? A fun conundrum.

Sandbox issues abound.

This one's good for some outrageous rhymes (my daughter mentioned it to me, when I asked her if she remembered Tom Lehrer): Spring is here, spring is here. Life is skittles, and life is beer. I think the loveliest time of the year Is the spring, I do, don't you? Course you do! But there's one thing that makes spring complete for me And makes every Sunday a treat for me: All the world seems in tune On a spring afternoon When we're poisoning pigeons in the park. Every Sunday you'll see My sweetheart and me As we poison the pigeons in the park When they see us coming The birdies all try an' hide, But they still go for peanuts When coated with cyan-hide. The sun's shining bright, Everything seems all right When we're poisoning pigeons in the park. We've gained notoriety And caused much anxiety In the Audubon Society With our games. They call it impiety And lack of propriety And quite a variety of unpleasant names. But it's not against any religion To want to dispose of a pigeon. So, if Sunday you're free, Why don't you come with me, And we'll poison the pigeons in the park. And maybe we'll do In a squirrel or two While we're poisoning pigeons in the park. We'll murder them all amid laughter and merriment, Except for the few we take home to experiment. My pulse will be quickenin' With each drop of strychnine We feed to a pigeon (It just takes a smidgin) To poison a pigeon in the park.

So many quotable lines from Lehrer. He was a musical theater buff, and his work showed it, with whimsical rhyming and often mordant wit that followed in the tradition of such as Gilbert and Sullivan, YP Harburg, and Cole Porter. AFAICT, he is the only human to pen a line which rhymed frontally, Brinkley and Hunt-a-ley, and contrapuntally.

RIP Tom Lehrer, one of my favorite songwriter satirists. https://apnews.com/article/tom-lehrer-son-satirist-mathematician-dies-9caa7ee01faf4fbfb793d7ba984c179d Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun A man whose allegiance Is ruled by expedience Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown "Nazi, Schmazi!" says Wernher von Braun. Don't say that he's hypocritical Say rather that he's apolitical "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun. Some have harsh words for this man of renown But some think our attitude Should be one of gratitude _Like the widows and cripples in old London town Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun. You too may be a big hero Once you've learned to count backwards to zero "In German, oder Englisch, I know how to count down Und I'm learning Chinese!" says Wernher von Braun.

This Yale journal lays it all out, in terms of presidential immunity having no umbrella powers for those who might implement a presidential directive. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/even-if-the-president-is-immune-his-subordinates-are-not-by-zachary-s-price/ By immunizing Presidents against criminal liability in some circumstances, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States limited one form of potential accountability for lawless presidents. Whatever the scope of this immunity, however, the decision left in place one of the most important constraints on the American presidency: the need to act through subordinates to carry out most government functions. Because those subordinates lack the same criminal immunity as the President, this constraint may now be all the more important—but its renewed salience could bring other untested questions to the fore. Even before Trump, Presidents’ need to act through subordinates was a key constraint on their power. Many governmental powers are not actually vested in the President personally but instead in other federal officers. The Attorney General, for example, holds statutory authority to control most litigation on behalf of the United States (including criminal prosecutions), and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency holds authority to promulgate important pollution limits. By structuring the executive branch in these ways, Congress ensures that Presidents must act through other officers to achieve key policy goals. Furthermore, even when Presidents do personally hold the relevant legal authorities, they are often practically dependent on subordinates to carry out their wishes. Such dependence on subordinates helps maintain the rule of law because subordinate officers may resist unlawful directives—and when personal integrity and reputational concerns fail to induce such resistance, legal restraints on such officers create an important backstop.

I am six years old. Unfortunately, that age is in Jupiter years.

ChatGPT Gave Instructions for Murder, Self-Mutilation, and Devil WorshipOpenAI’s chatbot also said “Hail Satan.” By Lila Shroff The AtlanticChatGPT Gave Instructions for Murder, Self-Mutilation, an...OpenAI’s chatbot also said “Hail Satan.”

Well thanks for the video, but what folks here were hoping for was a link to a news report from a reputable media source which details these findings you described on pilot error. Something we can read.

It could be what exchemist described or it could also be someone just expressing irritation (for example, in some cultures calling someone "my friend" may be seen as presumptuous - I am personally okay with it but I know not everyone is). The latter use of DV is not real helpful, but it seems to be a forum with a range of personalities. If you can direct me to a posting of yours where a friendly and courteous reply was downvoted, I might want to cancel it - I am not a fan of weaponized DVing.