There might actually be nothing bad about the Torment Nexus, and the classic sci-fi novel “Don’t Create The Torment Nexus” was nonsense. We shouldn’t be making policy decisions based off of that.
Yes, we know (there are papers about it) that for LLMs every increase of capabilities we need exponentially more data to train it. But don’t worry, we only consumed half the worlds data to train LLMs, still a lot of places to go ;).
That doesn’t appear to actually be the case, though. LLMs have been improving greatly through the use of a smaller amount of higher-quality data, some of it synthetic data that’s been generated in part by other LLMs. Turns out simply dumping giant piles of random nonsense from the Internet on a neural net doesn’t produce the best results. Do you have references to any of those papers you mention?
Interesting. I recall a phenomenon by which inorganic matter was given a series of criterion and it adapted based on changes from said environment, eventually forming data which it then learned from over a period of millions of years.
It then used that information to build the world wide web in the lifetime of a single organism and cast doubt on others trying to emulate it.
My dog does linear algebra everytime he pees on a fire hydrant so that he only pees for the exact amount of time needed. Similarly, when I drain my bath tub, it acts as a linear algebra machine that calculates how long it takes for the water to drain through a small hole.
Is this a fun way to look at the world that allows us to more readily build computational devices from our environment? Definitely. Is it useful for determining what is intelligence? Not at all.
Yes, and that was a stupid argument unrelated to the point made that evolution used this raw data to do things, thus raw data in LLMs will lead to AGI. You just wanted debate points for ‘see somewhere there is data in the process of things being alive’. Which is dumb gotcha logic which drags all of us down and makes it harder to have normal conversations about things. My reply was an attempt to make you see this and hope you would do better.
I didn’t call you stupid, I called the argument stupid, but if the shoe fits.
E: the argument from the person before you ‘evolution was created us with a lot of data and then we created the internet’ is also silly of course, as if you just go ‘well raw data created evolution’ then no matter how we would get AGI (say it is build out of post quantum computers in 2376) this line of reasoning would say it comes from raw data, so the whole conversation devolves into saying nothing.
No no see, since everything is information this argument totally holds up. That one would need to categorize and order it for it to be data is such a silly notion, utterly ridiculous and unnecessary! Just throw some information in the pool and stir, it’ll evolve soon enough!
What these people don’t realize is you’re never gonna get AGI by just feeding a machine an infinite amount of raw data.
You’re right. We should move onto feeding it orphans
Check out my new startup at modestproposal.ai
Oh, that’s why the orphan crushing machine exists. Completely realistic, actually.
That reminds me, wonder if all the mods already got updated for the new version of rimworld.
You sound very confident of that. Have you tried it?
wild
You’re quoting an out-of-context fragment of a comment I made in a completely different thread in a different community, and adding nothing to it. I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
Yes, we know (there are papers about it) that for LLMs every increase of capabilities we need exponentially more data to train it. But don’t worry, we only consumed half the worlds data to train LLMs, still a lot of places to go ;).
That doesn’t appear to actually be the case, though. LLMs have been improving greatly through the use of a smaller amount of higher-quality data, some of it synthetic data that’s been generated in part by other LLMs. Turns out simply dumping giant piles of random nonsense from the Internet on a neural net doesn’t produce the best results. Do you have references to any of those papers you mention?
Necro-edit: NVIDIA just released an LLM that’s specifically designed to generate training data for other LLMs, as a concrete example of what I’m talking about.
Interesting. I recall a phenomenon by which inorganic matter was given a series of criterion and it adapted based on changes from said environment, eventually forming data which it then learned from over a period of millions of years.
It then used that information to build the world wide web in the lifetime of a single organism and cast doubt on others trying to emulate it.
But I see your point.
humans are just like linear algebra when you think about it
Not me dawg, I am highly non linear (pls donate to my gofundme for spinal correction)
there really is no limit on how bad an argument you types will leap to defend lol
Which at no point involved raw data. Laymen hubris.
deleted by creator
My dog does linear algebra everytime he pees on a fire hydrant so that he only pees for the exact amount of time needed. Similarly, when I drain my bath tub, it acts as a linear algebra machine that calculates how long it takes for the water to drain through a small hole.
Is this a fun way to look at the world that allows us to more readily build computational devices from our environment? Definitely. Is it useful for determining what is intelligence? Not at all.
Could you not make these kinds of stupid arguments just to score debate points?
deleted by creator
Where the fuck was the insult? Wild
You’re the one making incoherent illogical driveby comments, clown
deleted by creator
A masterful performance, an opus of ineptitude! Brava!
Yes, and that was a stupid argument unrelated to the point made that evolution used this raw data to do things, thus raw data in LLMs will lead to AGI. You just wanted debate points for ‘see somewhere there is data in the process of things being alive’. Which is dumb gotcha logic which drags all of us down and makes it harder to have normal conversations about things. My reply was an attempt to make you see this and hope you would do better.
I didn’t call you stupid, I called the argument stupid, but if the shoe fits.
E: the argument from the person before you ‘evolution was created us with a lot of data and then we created the internet’ is also silly of course, as if you just go ‘well raw data created evolution’ then no matter how we would get AGI (say it is build out of post quantum computers in 2376) this line of reasoning would say it comes from raw data, so the whole conversation devolves into saying nothing.
No no see, since everything is information this argument totally holds up. That one would need to categorize and order it for it to be data is such a silly notion, utterly ridiculous and unnecessary! Just throw some information in the pool and stir, it’ll evolve soon enough!
The number of rocks in my garden is information. Yet, despite counting them all, I have not found AGI. So I must need more information than that.
Clearly, counting all the rocks in Wales should do it. So much counting.
it was straight up “not even wrong”
deleted by creator
The sensory inputs are a continuous stream of environmental data.