Only Bayes Can Judge Me
Key:
Things musk aligns with: ✅
Things musk does not align with: ❌
Neutral: 😐
Uhh, hmm. Fuck
I guess now that USAID is being defunded and the government has turned off their anti-russia/china propaganda machine, private industry is taking over the US hegemony psyop game. Efficient!!!
/s /s /s I hate it all
If Paris Marx is the little domino that causes total collapse of US hegemony, I’ll join the patreon at the highest tier forever
Early covid (july 2020) interview:
charitable take: he has the good sense to not make any major claims about the pandemic, other than to speculate that it would worsen his go-to metric of “extreme poverty”, which is… fine, i guess.
neutral take: nothing extraordinarily damning other than his usual takes.
uncharitable: this is of course early pandemic, so maybe pinker hasn’t found the angle to sell his normal shit with.
Side note: does pinker ever wonder about why extreme poverty has been reduced? I can’t imagine he thinks it’s anything other than liberal democracy and US foreign interference, when the real answer is like, China (a country that Pinker definitely believes is counter to said liberal democracy and the US) continuing to develop economically. Basically i want to him to squirm as he tries and fails to resolve the cognitive dissonance.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2018/08/comic-steven-pinker-certified-grief-counselor
I don’t keep this link on hand, I just google “pinker comic” and find it.
Pinker tries not to be a total caricature of himself challenge: profoundly impossible
specifically this caricature:
Has Klezra Ein ever used the term “useful idiot”?
the answer is yes, in a self-own sort of way
Wasn’t there some big post on LW about how pattern matching isn’t intelligence?
offering sora will only make them sore-er
I used to cry wolf. I still cry wolf, but I used to, too
also that bluesk (idk what the bluesky equivalent of a tweet is) is sign-in walled, I can’t read it
A few years ago, maybe a few months after moving to the bay area, a guy from my high school messaged me on linkedin. He was also in the bay, and was wanting to network, I guess? I ghosted him, because I didn’t know him at all, and when I asked my high school friends about him, he got some bad reviews. Anyway today linkedin suggests/shoves a post down my throat where he is proudly talking about working at anthropic. Glad I ghosted!
PS/E: Anthro Pic is definitely a furry term. Is that anything?
Hey, all I’m saying is, abject despair is worse than despair with a lil’ hope
I’d feel better about this if I believed the democrats were willing to do anything about it
Wow, they invented a way to make people feel good about getting a PIP
OK I sped read that thing earlier today, and am now reading it proper.
The best answer — AI has “jagged intelligence” — lies in between hype and skepticism.
Here’s how they describe this term, about 2000 words in:
Researchers have come up with a buzzy term to describe this pattern of reasoning: “jagged intelligence." […] Picture it like this. If human intelligence looks like a cloud with softly rounded edges, artificial intelligence is like a spiky cloud with giant peaks and valleys right next to each other. In humans, a lot of problem-solving capabilities are highly correlated with each other, but AI can be great at one thing and ridiculously bad at another thing that (to us) doesn’t seem far apart.
So basically, this term is just pure hype, designed to play up the “intelligence” part of it, to suggest that “AI can be great”. The article just boils down to “use AI for the things that we think it’s good at, and don’t use it for the things we think it’s bad at!” As they say on the internet, completely unserious.
The big story is: AI companies now claim that their models are capable of genuine reasoning — the type of thinking you and I do when we want to solve a problem. And the big question is: Is that true?
Demonstrably no.
These models are yielding some very impressive results. They can solve tricky logic puzzles, ace math tests, and write flawless code on the first try.
Fuck right off.
Yet they also fail spectacularly on really easy problems. AI experts are torn over how to interpret this. Skeptics take it as evidence that “reasoning” models aren’t really reasoning at all.
Ah, yes, as we all know, the burden of proof lies on skeptics.
Believers insist that the models genuinely are doing some reasoning, and though it may not currently be as flexible as a human’s reasoning, it’s well on its way to getting there. So, who’s right?
Again, fuck off.
Moving on…
The skeptic’s case
vs
The believer’s case
A LW-level analysis shows that the article spends 650 words on the skeptic’s case and 889 on the believer’s case. BIAS!!! /s.
Anyway, here are the skeptics quoted:
Great, now the believers:
You will never guess which two of these four are regular wrongers.
Note that the article only really has examples of the dumbass-nature of LLMs. All the smart things it reportedly does is anecdotal, i.e. the author just says shit like “AI can do solve some really complex problems!” Yet, it still has the gall to both-sides this and suggest we’ve boiled the oceans for something more than a simulated idiot.
Does vox do anything other than vomit hot garbage?
US space pen vs. Russian space pencil energy
(jk I know it’s space pens all the way down)
Google, killing one of its products because their executives make shit decisions? Unheard of.