It's hard for me to get a grip on, and I'm putting thoughts into other peoples' minds here, but many Republicans genuinely saw Covid safety protocols as a cynical attempt to undermine democracy. They see stories like this:
This might be a "yes, and" moment, but the article specifically points the largest feeders of contemporary thought leaning algorithmically in one direction. It doesn't matter if that direction is left or right, either way shaping thought in one direction is anti-democratic and that's what should worry all of us.
Tony Conrad [1] was the VC that guided our related content engine (Sphere: a vector database before vector databases were cool) through a $25 million exit. Chump change these days but he took really good care of us, leading us through a global recession and then two acquisitions.
> When the consciousness itself not understood and well defined in the first place, it is pretty pointless to debate if something is or isn't conscious.
I think that by debating what consciousness is not is one of the best ways we can gain a deeper understanding of consciousness itself.
The weird thing is, you and Chiang have different arguments but you're using the same logic:
> Before anyone can credibly claim that they’ve solved an extraordinarily difficult engineering problem, I need to be confident that they have previously solved the many much simpler problems that precede the difficult problem.
IOW if we don't know what consciousness is, how can we call LLMs conscious when we haven't seen even the barest intermediary steps towards our nascent concept of consciousness first?
I think it's telling to your point that when Chiang describes what would make him think an LLM was conscious he starts using words like "believe" and "want" right away, because yeah as you say, we have no qualifications for what consciousness is.
> IOW if we don't know what consciousness is, how can we call LLMs conscious when we haven't seen even the barest intermediary steps towards our nascent concept of consciousness first?
We stipulate that other human beings are conscious from their behavior and how it relates to ours when it is accompanied by our personal introspective experience or "awareness" of being conscious during normal cognition. The process for ascribing consciousness to LLMs would be same: A stipulation on the basis of behavior that relates to our own behavior and how it appears to be linked to the introspective experience of being conscious.
> 'retail' investors are going to have perhaps 5% of their portfolio in it.
If they are the only moonshot style companies in their portfolio, and if they crater that's the physical equivalent of a 160lb person carrying a gallon of milk around with them wherever they go. At least until they've drunk it I guess.
Lots of "ifs" in that sentence now I read it back though.
Building my resume in a wysiwyg editor was an exercise in frustration. Formatting was inconsistent, they were only searchable from inside the editor and versioning was useless because diff had no meaning.
My markdown resume has its own problems but having this level of control has been a huge load off my mind.
I started maintaining mine in plain text, no markup at all, 20 years ago and try to use it wherever I can. My favorite employer, a startup, liked it. Regrettably most companies these days lack a sense of humor.
Can we just say it was basically vibe coded, but with real humans in the loop?
Version 5 was when the source material dried up, and the hallucinations became more frequent and obvious.
As far as I remember there was a basic outline of major plot points and where all the major characters ended up (a prompt) and were left to fill in all the blanks.
I mean he references a "murder of ravens" several times. It's an unkindness of ravens and a murder of crows. Classic LLM mistake right up there with the emdash.
Naive question but you could move all your stuff out of NASDAQ before the IPO right? The downside is that you'd have to keep it out of NASDAQ until SPCX is finished cratering it?
It make it more solidly clear how this really is an IPO for all 3 orgs: SpaceX, X, and xAI which helped me understand more of the video.
> The Launch segment posted $4.1 billion in revenue but a $657 million operating loss, driven by roughly $3 billion in Starship R&D — a deliberate strategic bet, not a distressed business.
All in all it reflects a ton of what the youtube video says though (I haven't finished the video though). It adds some color.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/weld-c...
as evidence of that. I think now they feel like they're just responding in kind.
reply