swlabr @ swlabr @awful.systems

Only Bayes Can Judge Me

---

Read more

Posts

19

Comments

638

Joined

2 yr. ago

Goddamn

offering sora will only make them sore-er

I used to cry wolf. I still cry wolf, but I used to, too

also that bluesk (idk what the bluesky equivalent of a tweet is) is sign-in walled, I can’t read it

A few years ago, maybe a few months after moving to the bay area, a guy from my high school messaged me on linkedin. He was also in the bay, and was wanting to network, I guess? I ghosted him, because I didn’t know him at all, and when I asked my high school friends about him, he got some bad reviews. Anyway today linkedin suggests/shoves a post down my throat where he is proudly talking about working at anthropic. Glad I ghosted!

PS/E: Anthro Pic is definitely a furry term. Is that anything?

Hey, all I’m saying is, abject despair is worse than despair with a lil’ hope

I'd feel better about this if I believed the democrats were willing to do anything about it

Wow, they invented a way to make people feel good about getting a PIP

OK I sped read that thing earlier today, and am now reading it proper.

The best answer — AI has “jagged intelligence” — lies in between hype and skepticism.

Here's how they describe this term, about 2000 words in:

Researchers have come up with a buzzy term to describe this pattern of reasoning: “jagged intelligence." [...] Picture it like this. If human intelligence looks like a cloud with softly rounded edges, artificial intelligence is like a spiky cloud with giant peaks and valleys right next to each other. In humans, a lot of problem-solving capabilities are highly correlated with each other, but AI can be great at one thing and ridiculously bad at another thing that (to us) doesn’t seem far apart.

So basically, this term is just pure hype, designed to play up the "intelligence" part of it, to suggest that "AI can be great". The article just boils down to "use AI for the things that we think it's good at, and don't use it for the things we think it's bad at!" As they say on the internet, completely unserious.

The big story is: AI companies now claim that their models are capable of genuine reasoning — the type of thinking you and I do when we want to solve a problem. And the big question is: Is that true?

Demonstrably no.

These models are yielding some very impressive results. They can solve tricky logic puzzles, ace math tests, and write flawless code on the first try.

Fuck right off.

Yet they also fail spectacularly on really easy problems. AI experts are torn over how to interpret this. Skeptics take it as evidence that “reasoning” models aren’t really reasoning at all.

Ah, yes, as we all know, the burden of proof lies on skeptics.

Believers insist that the models genuinely are doing some reasoning, and though it may not currently be as flexible as a human’s reasoning, it’s well on its way to getting there. So, who’s right?

Again, fuck off.

Moving on...

The skeptic's case

vs

The believer’s case

A LW-level analysis shows that the article spends 650 words on the skeptic's case and 889 on the believer's case. BIAS!!!!! /s.

Anyway, here are the skeptics quoted:

• Shannon Vallor, "a philosopher of technology at the University of Edinburgh"
• Melanie Mitchell, "a professor at the Santa Fe Institute"

Great, now the believers:

• Ryan Greenblatt, "chief scientist at Redwood Research"
• Ajeya Cotra, "a senior analyst at Open Philanthropy"

You will never guess which two of these four are regular wrongers.

Note that the article only really has examples of the dumbass-nature of LLMs. All the smart things it reportedly does is anecdotal, i.e. the author just says shit like "AI can do solve some really complex problems!" Yet, it still has the gall to both-sides this and suggest we've boiled the oceans for something more than a simulated idiot.

Does vox do anything other than vomit hot garbage?

US space pen vs. Russian space pencil energy

(jk I know it’s space pens all the way down)

You are right, but the Wronger chuds are way too far up their own buttholes to figure this out

Also LWers: https://youtu.be/AFj3tuNukTs

lol these dorks don't even realise they already made a superbabies and it sucks: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/super_babies_baby_geniuses_2

Why? Per the poll: “a lack of reliability.” The things being sold as “agents” don’t … work.

Vendors insist that the users are just holding the agents wrong. Per Bret Taylor of Sierra (and OpenAI):

Accept that it is imperfect. Rather than say, “Will AI do something wrong”, say, “When it does something wrong, what are the operational mitigations that we’ve put in place to deal with it?”

I think this illustrates the situation of the LLM market pretty well, not just at a shallow level of the base incentives of the parties at play, but also at a deeper level, showing the general lack of humanity and toleration of dogshit exhibited by the AI companies that they are trying to brainwash everyone with.

I thought it might be that kind of deal. I learned of this when I saw a pair of op-eds, one saying a W is deserved and the other saying the nom was insane.

What would some good unifying demands be for a hostile takeover of the Democratic party by centrists/moderates?

me, taking this at face value, and understanding the political stances of the democrats, and going by my definition of centrist/moderate that is more correct than whatever the hell Kelsey Piper thinks it means: Oh, this would actually push the democrats left.

Anyway, jesus christ I regret clicking on that name and reading. How the fuck is anyone this stupid. Vox needs to be burned down.

TIL musk has a nobel peace prize nomination for this year

Thiel sustains himself on wailing, sorry

And to think, almost a year ago to this day, they had just announced a partnership with Softbank.

thielbucks laundered through 17 cutouts get used to fund useful idiots for stochastic terrorism to whip up an anti-trans panic

While this didn’t happen to the letter, thielthoughts stochastically brought about Luigi, and we have the thielsweat to show for it