humans can learn a bunch of stuff without first learning the content of the whole internet and without the computing power of a datacenter or consuming the energy of Belgium. Humans learn to count at an early age too, for example.

I suspect that if you took into consideration the millions of generations of evolution that “trained” the basic architecture of our brains, that advantage would shrink considerably.

I would say that the burden of proof is therefore reversed. Unless you demonstrate that this technology doesn’t have the natural and inherent limits that statistical text generators (or pixel) have, we can assume that our mind works differently.

I disagree. I’d argue evidence suggests we’re just a more sophisticated version of a similar principle, refined over billions of years. We learn facts by rote, and learn similarities by rote until we develop enough statistical text (or audio) correlations to “understand” the world.

Conversations are a slightly meandering chain of statistically derived cliches. English adjective order is universally “understood” by native speakers based purely on what sounds right, without actually being able to explain why (unless you’re a big grammar nerd). More complex conversations might seem novel, but they’re just a regurgitation of rote memorized facts and phrases strung together in a way that seems appropriate to the conversation based on statistical experience with past conversations.

Also you say immature technology but this technology is not fundamentally (I.e. in terms of principle) different from what Weizenabum’s ELIZA in the '60s. We might have refined model and thrown a ton of data and computing power at it, but we are still talking of programs that use similar principles.

As with the evolution of our brains, which have operated on basically the same principles for hundreds of millions of years. The special sauce between human intelligence and a flatworm’s is a refined model.

So yeah, we don’t understand human intelligence but we can appreciate certain features that absolutely lack on GPTs, like a concept of truth that for humans is natural.

I’m not sure you can claim that absolutely. That kind of feature is an internal experience, you can’t really confirm or deny if a GPT has something similar. Besides, humans have a pretty tenuous relationship with the concept of truth. There are certainly humans that consider objective falsehoods to be Truth.

It’s also pretty young, human toddlers hallucinate and make things up. Adults too. Even experts are known to fall prey to bias and misconception.

I don’t think we know nearly enough about the actual architecture of human intelligence to start asserting an understanding of “understanding”. I think it’s a bit foolish to claim with certainty that LLMs in a MoE framework with self-review fundamentally can’t get there. Unless you can show me, materially, how human “understanding” functions, we’re just speculating on an immature technology.

Yeah, but Lucy has been letting us kick a pretty good portion of them. Dems are abysmal at marketing, but this administration has actually accomplished a decent amount of actual good policy. There are obvious exceptions and shortfalls, but it’s not like every single football has been pulled away.

Recognize the problems which you have the power to solve, and the ones you don’t. Fix what you can with mindfulness and compassion, accept what you can’t with emotionless calm. Reevaluate periodically.

Heard that, this drawer is exclusively for things that were used exactly one year ago.

Which side of the shit were you on?

I mean, epistemologically we can’t know anything for sure. All we can do is try to come to reasonable conclusions with the information available to us.

The job of President is complicated. It is not remotely possible to go over every single detail of every single action. Every president makes whoopsies, I prefer to give benefit of the doubt between mistakes and malice. There are plenty of intentional things to criticize without sensationalizing this sort of thing

From what I read Biden didn’t seek that judge to pardon, he was just one person affected by some big mass pardons. In this case I think he was one of like 1500 people who were moved to house arrest for non-violent crimes during Covid, who Biden pardoned all at once.

Still not great, the administration should’ve reviewed the details of those cases first, but it’s not like he deliberately sought the guy out.

This commercial features the main characters from the 2000s tv show Gilmore Girls

Ah, that makes more sense. She’s “drinking him out of business” because she usually just leaves without paying.

Looks like a straight cigar cutter to me

Okay? Just because I understand the point they’re trying to make doesn’t mean I agree with their conclusion. I have no love for that CEO, I just think that there are enough good criticisms that we don’t have to twist people’s words into things they didn’t say.

Produced? Hard to say. Apples to apples would be managed/administrated, that’s probably in the neighborhood of $5-10 million. Why?

They didn’t claim that though? They went on to talk about other factors too. The point of mentioning revenue was to portray him as “the American Dream”, going from a small town to leading a major company.

Keep in mind I’m not defending the guy, but I don’t see the point in being purposely obtuse

Because they are trying to paint him as a productive member of society. Revenue is still the measure of how much business you do.

That much revenue isn’t, by itself, the bad part. Revenue is just how much you take in from your sales. If they had minimal overhead and paid the majority of that out to claims, that would be fine (in the context of our existing healthcare system). The problem is the profit, how much of that $280B goes into the company’s pockets instead of claim payouts.

Snoozers

You clearly don’t know biology do you

Says the person claiming a fetus is a fully developed human.

are you capable of sustaining yourself I you were left in a jungle ?

Millions of people live in the jungles of the world. How many fetuses live outside wombs? Oh right, none. Because there’s a difference between having the skills to survive in the jungle, and being a fully developed human capable of independent biological survival.

Have you ensured that every single one of your gametes resulted in a child? Then you’re a genocidal hypocrite.

Then how come they can’t survive without leeching off a host? 80% of pregnancies spontaneously end in miscarriage. That doesn’t sound viable or fully developed to me. If it could survive outside the womb, you’d have a point. But it can’t, so you don’t.

You know who was actually fully-developed? All the women who have died due to pregnancy complications thanks to draconic laws that take away their rights over their own bodies. I’ll hold you responsible for murdering them.

Did I protest?

I know, I was doubling down to reinforce the veracity of the judgement against me, to contextualize my dissent