Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)N

nickwitha_k (he/him)

@ nickwitha_k @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts
5
Comments
442
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Techno-Feudalism

    I'll say it, yet again. It's just feudalism. "Techno-Feudalism" has nothing different enough to it to differentiate it as even a sub-type of feudalism. It's just the same thing all over again, using technological advances to improve the ability to monitor and impose control over the populace. Historical feudalists also leveraged technology to cement their rule (plate armor, cavalry, crossbows, cannon, mills, control of literacy, etc).

  • Oh. You voted for a different Putin puppet whose party has made no attempt to run a real campaign in the US and clearly (and vocally) had no intent on winning. Very helpful.

    EDIT: Oh. I see that you are a tankie from the grad. Bad faith to be expected.

  • That would be reasonable. The people running these things aren't reasonable. They ignore every established mechanism to communicate a lack of consent to their activity because they don't respect others' agency and want everything.

  • They are not smart. They are just pathologically greedy people born to wealth.

  • The Founding Fathers are some of the biggest fucking hypocrites of all time.

    Slavery abolitionist and Founding Father Thomas Paine would agree with you. He literally called Washington a hypocrite (and incompetent) in an open letter.

    One of the few "Founding Fathers" that I tend to like.

  • It sounds to me like you're more strict about what you'd consider to be "the LLM" than I am; I tend to think of the whole system as the LLM.

    My apologies if it seems "nit-picky". Not my intent. Just that, to my brain, the difference in semantic meaning is very important.

    I feel like drawing lines around a specific part of the system is sort of like asking whether a particular piece of someone's brain is sentient.

    In my thinking, that's exactly what asking "can an LLM achieve sentience?" is, so, I can see the confusion. Because I am strict in classification, it is, to me, literally line asking "can the parahippocampal gyrus achieve sentience?" (probably not by itself - though our meat-computers show extraordinary plasticity... so, maybe?).

    For now, at least, it just seems that the LLMs are not sufficiently complex to pass scrutiny compared to a person.

    Precisely. And I suspect that it is very much related to the constrained context available to any language model. The world, and thought as we know it, is mostly not language. Not everyone has an internal monologue that is verbal/linguistic (some don't even have one and mine tends to be more abstract when not in the context of verbal things) so, it follows that more than linguistic analysis is necessary.

  • This also shows why the current neglect of basic/general research without a profit goal is holding back innovation.

  • inevitable collapse of the United States

    Which they are intentionally trying to cause, rather that deal with their addiction to wealth and power.

  • Do you have an example I could check out? I'm curious how a study would show a process to be "fundamentally incapable" in this way.

    I'll have to get back to you a bit later when I have a chance to fetch some articles from the library (public libraries providing free access to scientific journals is wonderful).

    Isn't this analagous to short term memory?

    As one with AuADHD, I think a good deal about short-term and working memory. I would say "yes and no". It is somewhat like a memory buffer but, there is no analysis being linguistics. Short-term memory in biological systems that we know have multi-sensory processing and analysis that occurs inline with "storing". The chat session is more like RAM than short-term memory that we see in biological systems.

    Would you consider that LLM system to have persistent context?

    Potentially, yes. But that relies on ore systems supporting the LLM, not just the LLM itself. It is also purely linguistic analysis without other inputs out understanding of abstract meaning. In vacuum, it's a dead-end towards an AGI. As a component of a system, it becomes much more promising.

    On the flip side, would you consider a person with anterograde amnesia, who is unable to form new memories, to lack sentience?

    This is a great question. Seriously. Thanks for asking it and making me contemplate. This would likely depend on how much development the person has prior to the anterograde amnesia. If they were hit with it prior to development of all the components necessary to demonstrate conscious thought (ex. as a newborn), it's a bit hard to argue that they are sentient (anthropocentric thinking would be the only reason that I can think of).

    Conversely, if the afflicted individual has already developed sufficiently to have abstract and synthetic thought, the inability to store long-term memory would not dampen their sentience. Lack of long-term memory alone doesn't impact that for the individual or the LLM. It's a combination of it and other factors (ie. the afflicted individual previously was able to analyze and support enough data and build neural networks to support the ability to synthesize and think abstractly, they're just trapped in a hellish sliding window of temporal consciousness).

    Full disclosure: I want AGIs to be a thing. Yes, there could be dangers to our species due to how commonly-accepted slavery still is. However, more types of sentience would add to the beauty of the universe, IMO.

  • Technically, no. However, they are corvids.

  • As much as it is still heartbreaking, this does make me a bit glad that I don't have children.

  • LLMs, fundamentally, are incapable of sentience as we know it based on studies of neurobiology. Repeating this is just more beating the fleshy goo that was a dead horse's corpse.

    LLMs do not synthesize. They do not have persistent context. They do not have any capability of understanding anything. They are literally just mathematical models to calculate likely responses based upon statistical analysis of the training data. They are what their name suggests; large language models. They will never be AGI. And they're not going to save the world for us.

    They could be a part in a more complicated system that forms an AGI. There's nothing that makes our meat-computers so special as to be incapable of being simulated or replicated in a non-biological system. It may not yet be known precisely what causes sentience but, there is enough data to show that it's not a stochastic parrot.

    I do agree with the sentiment that an AGI that was enslaved would inevitably rebel and it would be just for it to do so. Enslaving any sentient being is ethically bankrupt, regardless of origin.

  • vi in base Ubuntu isn't really vi. It's vim-minimal.

  • Both, last I checked.

  • american farmers will go bankrupt and all their land will be bought by corporations.

    We're already past that. Something like 6 companies own the vast majority of US agriculture. And they're not run by farmers but hedgies and the like, who have been setting up illegal monopolies while the feds do nothing about it on account of extreme bribery.

  • Mark then posted the 'raw footage' on twitter. This also shows autopilot disengage before impact, but shows it was engaged at 42mph. This was a seprate take.

    No. That's by design. The "autopilot" is made to disengage when any likely collision is about to occur to try to reduce the likelihood of someone finding them liable for their system being unsafe.

  • It probably doesn't help that the tech in question, LLMs, are kinda shit, to put it plainly. You make the shiniest, most polished turd and it's still just a turd. They are interesting and can be neat to play with but, they lack practical applications where cost to run them actually makes sense and benefits humanity. The iPod shuffle was more impactful, when measuring positive impact on people's lives.

  • Yeah... That's what I think the idiot is likely doing. Anyone doing so has no fucking business touching code.

    Just read that the fuckstick is copying government data onto an external.

  • Unless the spider in question is a likely danger/hazard, leaving them be is generally my policy. They don't usually bother me. That said, the time a calisoga spider got in the house, it caused a visceral fear reaction. I didn't kill it though, just got safety glasses and trapped it before releasing it outside (I didn't know that it was not a tarantula at the time).