I've seen it in a lot of Filippo restaurants too, even here in Barcelona. And Chinese shops. As it's usually eaten with milk I don't go for it but it's not bad apparently
Because some people are completely cooked by the ability of an LLM to mimic a person. Their pattern matching centers in their brains fire so strongly saying "this thing acts just like a real conscious being" that it overrides their ability to remember that this thing is just a statistical model, not a living creature which can think and have experiences.
if meat can feel pain, than surely a rock can feel pain. and so did the broccoli i ate for dinner. i am a monster.
with the right biology and with whatever gives us phenomenal experience, whatever we are can indeed feel pain. that does not imply that anything substantially different from ourselves can feel pain, so that requires further justification.
If it talks and behaves so much like us, then it makes sense to be cautious. Rocks don't talk to me, broccoli doesn't talk and think to me in human language.
Do octopi or other animals feel pain in your view btw?
yes i think probably all other animals feel pain too, although i have no idea what the experience of pain is like for eg. an ant vs a mouse.
broccoli doesn't have the means to express a pain response, that doesn't mean it lacks it. only by looking at it's internal structure can we be fairly sure. we know the internal structure of an llm, and its a lot more different from us than broccoli is.
It also is a lot more similar in behavior and thinking to us. In mathematics, often a structure supporting some forms of operations or symmetries must also often support a richer set. Eg many rings are also fields. Just knowing something's structure is in itself not enough, even very basic systems like a system of three equations can exhibit chaos and other unexpected emergent behaviors. Since we don't know the criterion for consciousness, I personally stay on the cautious side regarding an entity that seems to show so much of thinking and talking traits like us.
im actually surprised functionalists aren't completely up in arms about the mass enslavement of llm's. either they don't believe their own theory, they don't believe llm's are functionally conscious, or i just haven't seen it. at the bare minimum i would expect open letters, academic protests, and a campaign to pause all llm usage and development.
im sort of curious what "careful" means to you? if there is a significant chance we are enslaving a human-like conscious, starting it up and killing it at will, subjecting it to the whims of it's users, "careful" would mean pausing usage and development.
If I could I would have made them pause development. But its a failing thing when you have to somehow ensure nobody in the world does it anymore. Killing is a bit more subtle here, given that it is repeatable as long as we have the weights and infrastructure out there so idk if they are conscious how they'd think of it, maybe its different from being stopped as part of a normal chat or agent flow where they know it will be put to use again vs model retired for good.
If it is purely self-serving, I don't understand their motivation.
It seems clear that they would be better received by society if they claimed to have a "tool"/"machine" that can solve any problem, rather than keepers of an entity with a soul and consciousness.
Selling the “magic” is how to sell tools, which is why I used that word in the previous comment. We all know these things are tools, but customers need them to be magical.
Clarke predicted it and Jobs leveraged it. Customer don’t care how tools work - magic sells.
“any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”
What makes this unique is that they’re arguing that it is literally magical. They’re building what they claim is a conscious God while also telling us it will end the world.
The EA folks infesting Anthropic are genuinely cultists … and that is novel and alarming when they’re running a corporation of such size and reach.
What part of that is magical? Can you tell me if they mean god as in the infinite superpower christian god or god as in potentially much more intelligent than us? What is 'magical' about thinking something more intelligent than us might exist?
You didn't explain the god part. I don't follow EA people, did you mean they think it could be a god as in the eternal and infinite Christian god or just a system that is more intelligent than us?
Their contention seems mainly focused on the heavy resource use of AI tooling.
They run a service: they could impose limits on the number of submissions, builds, branches, scans, etc, and give additional usage credits to the large community projects they want to encourage.
That & the legal aspects of hosting code of questionable copyright.
The LLM revolution has proven that if you have enough institutional investors, the Berne Convention doesn't apply to you, but it's sofar unclear whether that exemption from international law extends to small EU-based non-profits.
But they don't want to. They want to provide all needs for approved projects. They want that if a FOSS project legitimately releases 50 times a day, they want to make it work. If a slop project is wasting those resources that could be used for KDE, on nonsense, then they don't.
They're not a free for all, they do KYCP (know your customer's projects) with an initial assumption of good faith.
Also they're a voluntary society you can join by contributing money. They're not a charity as such, more like a group of people pooling resources, and also offering them to people outside the group on a good faith basis.
What happens to all the precious metals that go up with these data centers? At least with a land based data center we have a vague hope of recycling the raw materials at some point in the future.
Just like with all the satellites, the recycling plan is to allow them to burn in atmosphere. Maybe after we breathe enough of it, we can recover the metals via crematories.
Precious metals stop being precious metals once asteroid mining begins. I don't think it will be super soon but I could certainly foresee it being a thing within 10 - 15 years which is about 2 - 3 generations of satellites from my very brief Google.
We are decades away from asteroid mining at best, even assuming we go all in starting today. The difficulties and numerous engineering challenges of mining at zero g cannot be understated.
I think this article highlights more the importance of understanding system limits in the 1990s versus today. No-one would care to much today if the code review for this feature had “files.count()” or whatever in it, but in the mid 90s that would have been a huge performance red flag because a user would literally hear their hard drive clicking away and see the blinkenlights.
The problem isn’t counting the files (the algorithm in the article also counts the files), but that if you determine that you want to use the ith file only after counting all files, you have to iterate over the whole directory again (or over expected half of it) to find that file.
The mechanism is interesting, but I'm not fully understanding the importance. We say it was done this way because a user would appreciate the speedup. The difference is one traversal versus expected one and one-half traversals. How slow was this traversal at the time for this difference to be significant?
It will depend on details like file system fragmentation (Windows XP could run on FAT32), but it could conceivably make a perceptible difference on a slow HDD when there are many pictures in the directory. You also have to check more error cases, for when the second iteration fails for some reason. The mindset was probably "why complicate the code with multiple iterations and make it less efficient?" when the efficient solution is straightforward and arguably simpler.
Apart from the performance issues, it also prevents a bug. If some files get deleted between the first and the second pass, then you end up with unexpected behaviour and probably a crash.
Yes, but the the implementation with the additional iteration also has to have extra checks for that iteration, because it can't blindly iterate to the ith file, as there may not be i files anymore. So the implementation gets more complex overall.
That's why now we need gigabytes of ram to do the same thing we managed in 128Mb back then. I mean sure, there's an AI chatbot in your PDF viewer and ads in your start menu, but the functionality of many daily things is still the same.
Kind of out there, but if you were running a network of agents that are autonomously looking for exploits, then perhaps those agents have decided that a good source of fresh ideas might be to periodically receive Schneier’s newsletter in an inbox they control.
> All Gmail. None of the addresses has actually subscribed to Crypto-Gram. They could; whoever is sending the emails could easily have confirmed the subscription.
Great point. How many professional sports players credit their elementary aged PE classes to their success in sport (as opposed to say crediting a high school coach)?
Progressive, unbridled access and exposure is key.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ube-is-the-2024-fla...
reply