iNow

Or several serially linked with that same massive increase in parallelism realized within each.

You drew a picture of an epicurious symphony for me just there. +1

With the Iowa GOP caucus only 10 days away, Governor Hailey appeared on a local PBS weekly Iowa politics program this evening. Sadly, I kept getting distracted trying to determine whether her uniform made her an Ensign on Star Trek TNG or part of Tuvoks Security team on the lesser appreciated Voyager series

I feel bad sometimes for all the smart religious believers out there being represented online by those so clearly unmolested by enlightenment like here with mostly annoying morons who clearly ate way too much paste during childhood… Sometimes

It’s only possible to prove math and spam. All other assertions are provisional.

Any. Any whatsoever. Whatyda got? With honesty and integrity

yes

How about you start with ANY and we'll go from there.

Thus creating a paradox where they were never there to make the change in the first place. A chronology protection conjecture, as it were.

They used to be called frozen stars, because light passing the event horizon around them appeared to freeze when viewed from another perspective. They also yes, do evaporate as per Hawkings calculations. As for the rest of your OP, the syntax is rather borked and hard to parse. These ideas are not considered as valid just because they're written down. They're accepted as valid because they accurate model the universe we encounter.

This thread is already way too personal, and I'd prefer we focus less on the individual. I'll try to be better at this myself, but we all need to remain focused on the positions and merit of the information being shared. Let's be clear: Many of Alkon's points are entirely valid. Much of what he shares contains very good and useful information. Likewise, some of what I've shared has been somewhat weak. This is all true, and so is the fact that he clearly has a strong interest in this topic and obviously allocates much of his time learning about it. That's exactly what we ALL should be doing... learning, growing, understanding and I applaud him for it. I just cannot personally join him in that final leap where he keeps making absolute comments about what will and will not be possible in the future, or where he dismisses things based solely on a rigid framing of terms or the quite limited technologies which are most familiar and most hyped today (or those being discussed on LinkedIn, for example). Nobody has a crystal ball, and nobody should IMO argue in the manner he has by starting with formalized rigid unbending structures and preconceived conclusions. We can make any logic work if we put all data into rigid potentially inaccurate semantic boxes and I see a lot of that here. If that works for him, then great! But it doesn't work for me, nor I propose does it work for most people who are scientifically minded (I believe he may be more philosopher than empiricist, but that's not intended as either a judgement or sleight, just a general observation). The technology in this space is changing at an incredible pace. It is equally being amplified by parallel technologies in processing power and capabilities. There are literally tens of thousands of seriously brilliant engineers working on this every single minute of every single day, and my core position here is that we must be EXTREMELY cautious and avoid making broad sweeping proclamations and predictions with any illusions of certainty. We must temper our confidence. What's potentially worse here is that we barely have workable definitions of consciousness and unconsciousness, the actual topic of the central claims made in the OP... so any assertions about what does and does not fit into those ill-defined ever-evolving categories strike me as specious, at best. Anyway... enough personal bullshit, yeah? This is an interesting topic that's fun to explore if we can please be civil with one another (and yes... the same reminder applies equally to me).

Mostly I dislike when people pretend that they can tell what will or will not be possible in the future, or who declare things to be impossible when those things are still very much only in their infancy. ✌🏼

You must be fun at parties

LinkedIn is largely a cesspool of self promoters and blustery overhyped marketing so this isn’t surprising.

Lack of agreement isn’t lack of comprehension. Thanks for sharing. Formalism is an excessive adherence to prescribed forms. Have fun with that. Such is not my style at all.

And perhaps somewhat interestingly, they tend to say the same thing about “the left.”

When did I claim none used transformers?? Definitely, though at least I’m not claiming things to be impossible like an evangelist based on what are considered now stone age versions of the tech. Thanks. I read that a few months ago and heard them present an updated poster about it at NeurIPS 2023

"Google it, bruh." Lol. Yeah. I think we're engaged in this topic at different levels. Thanks for your link to a consulting firm. Not helpful beyond confirming for me that you keep making absolute comments about chatbots and ignore the rest of the space. Yes, those are the big pricey corporate ones. Have some fun here to learn about a few of the others, as well as how they're scored for performance. https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderboard Or here if you prefer to filter on task type: https://huggingface.co/models TBH, I don't care what you think. There's nearly 500K at the link above alone. There are, IMO, simply far too many and they are evolving too quickly to make such absolute comments and generalizations.

Duly noted Please substantiate this statement, especially given how many thousands of new LLMs are being deployed each week.

I heard the cells in Petri dish #7 are planning to unionize.

The bad faith persists.

And the wolfram link you shared, the one I directly quoted you mentioning, was shared a year ago… and is already badly outdated. Anything from 7 years ago may as well have been typed on a GameBoy

That was a year ago. May as well be describing mainframes. Or vacuum tubes. Or horses and buggies.

You just keep copy pasting this across forums and across years.