@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

I think the "it's just marketing" people are more interested in seeming appropriately cynical and worldly than in trying to form a real mental model of Anthropic people.

I don't care at all about what I seem like. But I am cynical, certainly. That's because the AI companies have lied to our faces multiple times in the past in order to make the product seem more capable than it is, and I therefore expect them to do so again.

But, from personal knowledge of multiple employees there, they absolutely, 100% believe what they're saying.

Well then, like I said: every one of those people should be imprisoned for life for willingly endangering the entire human race. The "we are the only ones who can do it responsibly" argument is nonsense that doesn't hold a drop of water. If something is that dangerous, it's too dangerous for anyone to do, and the Anthropic employees (if they are telling the truth) are either too foolish or too amoral to get that. Therefore, they are too dangerous to society to have freedom and should be imprisoned for everyone's safety before they start working on something that really is as dangerous as they think AI is.

I agree with @Shakes that there's a good chance that this is all just for show to build up hype around Anthropic, just like... basically everything they do. But if it's not, then we should throw every single person involved in prison for the rest of their lives. If they actually believe that AI has a 10% chance of killing us all, and research it anyways, then their willingness to roll those dice is a threat to the rest of us which we shouldn't ignore. There basically are no "oh shit we shouldn't do that" limits that such a person will ever respect.

I'm not talking about people not spending time with their kids, and I have no idea why you are going on that road. I'm saying that someone has to be around to keep an eye on little kids. You need to change diapers if they are young enough, make them some food for lunch, etc. None of this requires the type of helicopter parenting you are bringing up out of nowhere. But it does require someone to be home, and many parents feel that they can't afford to have only one income in the household.

Sitting at home watching soap operas and scrolling tiktok while helicopter parenting your children away from learning basic responsibilities and competence is not productive.

This is absurdly uncharitable. I'm sure you can find women who are shirking responsibility and ruining their kids, but there are far more women who would do right by their kids given the chance to do so. Besides that, someone has to raise the kids, and their parents are going to do a much better job, on average, than daycare operators or teachers.

Yep, that's the one. It's brutal. I've read that if you know how the mechanics of the mission work it's not too bad, but going into it blind on an Ironman playthrough went very poorly indeed.

Grats on the clear! Classic Ironman is no joke, I assume the same is true for Commander Ironman in XCOM 2. I've tried a classic Ironman run in the first game, which came to an unceremonious end in the Newfoundland mission. I knew it to be an infamous mission but hadn't played it before, so I brought my A team... which got wiped out. This kills the campaign.

Overall I think XCOM 2 is neat, but not as good as the first game. I think the theme is a lot less interesting, and I dislike the constant pressure it puts on the player, especially at the strategic layer. And I might be unusual in this, but I actually thought the end of the story in the first game was really interesting and was looking forward to seeing where they went with it... but then they abandoned it. I don't hate XCOM 2 or anything, but EU is imo the better of the two overall.

But, fundamentally, I don't think the labs care about art or prose style.

That is probably true, but not really indicative that things will improve. The labs do care about programming, and LLMs still suck at programming. So even the thing the labs have put probably the most effort into, the machine is still below the level of a competent human.

You could be right. I figured that he was intoxicated with something, but there are all kinds in this world.

That is possibly the oddest thing I've ever seen on the Internet. I can only imagine the level of regret that dude felt when he sobered up the next day.

Also, if you do have reliable reference material in hand, you can ask the LLM about topics within it and have something to double-check to make sure the clanker isn't just hallucinating. It can be more effective than reading the references straight through, depending on your learning style and how the material is written.

That makes sense. If there has been a rise in sex tourism, are there establishments which cater to that by having girls who speak Chinese and Korean? Or is that not really acceptable due to the politics you mentioned?

Thanks for the info, it was super interesting. I didn't know there was such a wide variety in the sex trade in Japan. Though of course, it's not like I'm particularly knowledgeable about the sex trade in the US, so it stands to reason I know even less about a foreign country.

I thought that soaplands and the like had a strict "no foreigners" policy? In which case it wouldn't matter how quick the flight was, you wouldn't really be able to go to Japan to get laid.

I have long said that the actual threat to democracy in our country is the hyper partisan attitude that led to calling Trump a threat to democracy. I still believe that, and I think we are likely to see that continue to erode our democratic government even after Trump is out of office.

I hope that LLMs will become so cheap and reliable that all the previously hidden stupidity will be aired out for all to see soon enough.

LLMs are one of the things making people stupider (and are themselves very stupid), so you shouldn't hold your breath on that.

The text explicitly tells you that it was pre-ordained. The text explicitly tells you that if the characters we follow didn't step up, someone would have. I can't stop you from selectively ignoring that to fuel your interpretation, but you're well into the realm of making stuff up and not going off what the books actually say.

That is exactly how it's portrayed in the book. Your interpretation is explicitly contradicted by the text.

While Seldon is able to predict with broad strokes the various crises that the Foundation faces, the polity relies on the genius of various great men to get them out of these crises.

No it doesn't. The entire point of the Foundation premise is that the "great men" are just responding to the inexorable forces of history, and if it wasn't the characters we see, it would be someone else who stepped up. Asimov does invoke the great man theory of history, but it doesn't happen until the sixth story (in the second book). In the first book it's all historical forces, all the time.

Don't bring up the EU, nobody reads that.

The EU is widely read and beloved by Star Wars fans. Hardly "nobody".

My parents have way more backbone than to let that get to them.

I'm not forgetting that at all. But I think your argument is missing that there was not only the group of fans who loathed the prequels. There were also fans who enjoyed them quite a bit. I remember going to see Phantom Menace as a teenager with my friends, and we all came out of that movie stoked about how cool it was to see the Old Republic and the Jedi order at its peak, things we had only imagined before. I fully acknowledge that there were fans who very vocally and bitterly hated the prequels, but they were not even close to unanimous among the fan base.

As I said: I knew perfectly well that wouldn't have been acceptable. I don't think being strong minded even comes into it. I'm actually a pretty stubborn person (as many people can attest), but I'm not a fool either. I don't waste my energy on things that have zero chance of success, and as a child I didn't waste my energy on nagging my parents as a result.

My experience is that they will want what they want, and you can't really fight against it too hard, because that makes them want it more. It all ends up being a negotiation, whether you want it to or not...

That makes no sense to me. When I was growing up, if my parents disallowed something, that was all there was to it. Sometimes, if I could, I might try to go behind their backs (e.g. trying to catch Power Rangers on TV even though it was banned), but it was never a negotiation and nor did I have any illusions that I had a say in what was and early allowed. As I am not a parent I can't offer any meaningful advice or critique of any kind as to what the difference might be, only to say that your statement here is completely at odds with my experience growing up. And my parents were hardly super strict, either. It was simply well understood by both sides that this stuff wasn't remotely up for debate.

Not to the same extent as now, IMO. The prequels have their haters, but they have just as many fans. The sequels are so bad that even some prequel haters have softened their stance and talk about how at least Lucas had a vision, even if it was imperfect. The sequels do have fans, to be sure, but they are by far in the minority whereas opinion on the prequels was much more evenly split.

My man!