Recent posts

#11

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by Jacob - Today at 12:09:57 AM

Though on the other hand, at this point it's clear that JD Vance would be far worse for Ukraine than Trump is.

Yeah, Thiel is obviously evil.

#12

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by HVC - Today at 12:08:11 AM

But wouldn't that just be regurgitating Einstein? Sure it's more dynamic than a tape recorder playback, but functionally the same. It wouldn't be able to come up with new theories or thoughts.

[If]

#13

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Jacob - Today at 12:06:42 AM

I'm a little hesitant to agree, because I may be agreeing to something that I understand differently from you.  I mean, I couldn't have imagined how "evolved" could be interpreted here...

I want to make some kind of joke relating this to AI and human intelligence, but I can't quite figure out how... 

Let me try to concisely restate your restatement:  "If LLMs are developed to the point where they can consistently emulate intelligent communication, then they're functionally equivalent to being intelligent.  If you can have an "Einstein LLM" that would say everything flesh and bones Einstein would say, even to novel contexts, then it doesn't matter whether the algorithm is classified as cognizant or not;  functionally it is as intelligent as flesh and bones Einstein was.

Okay, understood.

It's a coherent position. I'm not 100% sure I agree with it - I'm more than a bit ambivalent to be honest - but let's accept it for the sake of argument.

First off, that's a really big if (to be fair, you did bold it ).

For me, the interesting part of that conversation is how likely it is that that if can be satisfied, and where the biggest challenges are likely to lie; as well as what subtle nuances are at risk of being elided (and with what consequences) in the eagerness to claim the if has been satisfied.

IMO, I think part of the point of the article that set off this current discussion was making is that human reasoning is largely non-language based and therefore, in my reading, it is making the prediction that LLMs are not going to be able to satisfy that if no matter how much computational power is applied.

Secondly, what Minsky said about the Einstein LLM which he articulated way better than my (now deleted) attempt.

#14

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by The Minsky Moment - November 25, 2025, 11:57:08 PM

Yeah I don't doubt you could in theory create an "Einstein LLM" or a "Hawking LLM" or something similar.  Train it on everything that Einstein ever said or wrote, or what was said or wrote by him, or what was said or written by people most similar to them.  And sure it may create a reasonable facsimile of what the historical Einstein would actually say in response to various prompts.  But what it can't do is replicate what Einstein would say or do if he were reincarnated at birth in the 21st century and lived a full life.  Because that Einstein would probably think or do novel and unexpected things now just like the real Einstein did in 1900s and 1910s.  But the LLM wouldn't be able to do that because it's not in its data set.

#15

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Admiral Yi - November 25, 2025, 11:45:34 PM

How would you program curiosity?  Invention?

[If]

#16

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by DGuller - November 25, 2025, 11:44:22 PM

I didn't mean to imply self-evolution, or Darwinian evolution, or anything of the kind.    I meant evolved as in "developed".

I'm not sure I'm following your argument correctly here, but it seems like you're saying that "it's theoretically possible that LLM models could be developed to a point where their output 'emulates intelligent communication', and that if it does then it can essentially be considered cognizant whatever is 'under the hood" purely on strength on the apparent intelligence of the output".

Is that right? Or have I missed some nuance?

I'm a little hesitant to agree, because I may be agreeing to something that I understand differently from you.  I mean, I couldn't have imagined how "evolved" could be interpreted here...

Let me try to concisely restate your restatement:  "If LLMs are developed to the point where they can consistently emulate intelligent communication, then they're functionally equivalent to being intelligent.  If you can have an "Einstein LLM" that would say everything flesh and bones Einstein would say, even to novel contexts, then it doesn't matter whether the algorithm is classified as cognizant or not;  functionally it is as intelligent as flesh and bones Einstein was.

#17

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by HisMajestyBOB - November 25, 2025, 11:41:38 PM

Though on the other hand, at this point it's clear that JD Vance would be far worse for Ukraine than Trump is.

#18

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by HisMajestyBOB - November 25, 2025, 11:40:26 PM

The world is catering to Trump's ego because he sits at the top of the world's most powerful military, and the world's biggest economy.

If there was any type of cosmic justice someone as morally repugnant as Trump would not be in that position, but the US finds itself in a situation where its levers of powers have been captured by the corrupt, the self-serving, and the straight up evil.

I am talking about the US doing this. I know why the rest of the world plays along. But we are actively allowing him to just fuck up our foreign policy for no other higher goal than satisfying his ego.

Even for a President that is ridiculous.

And we did because our country is full of evil people. Nobody should ever trust us again.

Why not? Every other part of society seems to be folding to Trump faster than Superman on laundry day. Universities, law firms, media (those few networks that aren't actually cheering him on), even the supposed opposition. Might as well throw foreign policy on the pile.

#19

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by The Minsky Moment - November 25, 2025, 11:22:16 PM

The question seems to hang on how one defines "functionally analogous to intelligence."  Contemporary LLMs are capable of generating output that is equivalent to output that would be generated by intelligent human beings for certain kinds of defined tasks.  Contemporary LLMs are capable of generating communicative output that passes the Turing Test.  If one defines those capabilities as intelligence that definitionally the statement is true.  It's not what I understand as "general intelligence" though.

#20

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by Zanza - November 25, 2025, 11:18:32 PM

Treason