How do they learn chess from patterns in language ?

Stop pretending like you know anything. You can't play chess after being trained on next token prediction if you aren't ACTUALLY forming real representations and world models inside your neural net. You can memorise the SAT. But memorising a bunch of text on chess doesn't allow you to predict board states because there are too many board states. Only modelling actual representations of the outside world would do that.

I swear to god every fucking ai breakthrough theres that one guy that says "yh but it wont get any smarter than this"

​

why ? what could possibly lead you to think that this exact moment is the moment ais stop getting smarter.

The paper may have been published then but his prediction was made on January 1 1993

Also he said it was a guess and his confidence interval was 2005 to 2030

2030 is looking realistic now.

Won't change much even if this goes through. Open AI has plenty of markets outside the USA willing to pay good money for its technology. Regulation can't stop market forces that are this powerful.

I like my subs how I like my women.

its a real petition and most of the important signatures are actually real.

how disappointing. The one good thing about this shitty era and they are trying to ruin it.

Im pretty sure the issue actually is that anyone can throw their name on the list and they aren't checking it.

I dunno about that. I think at some quality starts to matter more than cost

I mean you can run gpt2 for free on your own gpu but no one cares to.

Ilya sutskever literally believes that next word prediction is general purpose so you are just wrong on this.

The only thing he is unsure about is if something more efficient than next token prediction gets us there first. It's hard to defend Gary marcus' view that gpt isn't forming real internal representations since we can see that gpt4 so obviously is.

we will get a gpt4 turbo sometime this year I think and 3.5 will be dead.

Try getting human programmers to do those problems. Guarantee many will fail too.

I've been hearing the Neuro-symbolic cheerleading for 5 years now. I remember Yoshua bengio once debating against it and seeming dogmatic about his belief in pure learning and in how neurosymbolic systems wont solve all the limitations that deep learning has. I have yet to see any results and don't expect to see any. My guess is that transformers continue to scale for 5 more years at least and we will stop asking questions then about what paradigm shift needs to take place because it will be obvious that the current paradigm will do just fine.

"At some point LLMS did not work"

I'm sorry are you a time traveller ?

How do you know this ? GPT4 scaled above gpt3 and AI compute is still rising rapidly.

Those "other paths" have amounted to nothing

That is why people focus on machine learning. Because it produces results and as far as we know it hasn't stopped scaling. Why would we bother looking at his logic graphs that have produced fuck all for the 30 years he has been drawing them ?

ben goertzel will be an LLM denier forever. No matter how much progress LLMs make and how little progress his own pathetic opencog venture makes. He is best ignored I think.

well at least you can use gpt4 for padding now.

the API what businesses actually use only released like 2 weeks ago. Also 3.5 is shit. 4 is actually capable and might change a lot.

How would it motivate anything ?

It just distracts from real issues that we are facing now. Like we REALLY could die before 2050 by AI

Stop wasting time on issues 10^100 years away

this is literally not important at all

​

we have so many current issues and existential risks plus even if we start caring about the heat death 1 billion years from now then we would have wasted 0.000000000000000000000000000.........1% of our time. AI will kill us before 2100 stop worrying about far off stuff we never even reach.

That's the whole point I've been making !

It's a simple job and a machine like in the article could do 90% of what I spent my time doing.

Yes and you who has never worked a security job knows way more about how the job works than someone who worked it in a variety of roles and companies over years.

You are a tool.

No the several years of actually being on the job and seeing how the industry works in retail construction and office spaces. But I'm sure this pales in comparison to what a keyboard warrior who has never worked a day as a guard would know.

>We are talking about the robot

I was comparing the robot to static cameras. Read the conversation again you dipshit.

>It's more than walking beats. But you'd know that if you had more than a week.

I worked for several years. The week is for learning theory about the legal responsibilities. You can't even distinguish work from training you absolute moron.

>Wow, you worked as a minimum wage guard at some cushy office after a whopping week of training.

I've worked in several places spanning from retail to construction sites and yes cushy offices.

>You had ONE WEEK of training

Read the comment dipshit. I mention that you have 0 experience with what the JOB entails. I didn't work at the JOB for a week.

>Those cameras look incredibly low to the ground to be of a tactical advantage. I highly doubt you know what you are talking about at this point. Also not sure how 3D space is relevant at all here. Explain.

Cameras are hung on high ceilings. They are often hard to see from and have blindspots.

​

>I don't need to be to know this is a shit idea, which is why I doubt your credentials.

lol my credentials ? You mean the 1 week long training I did to be a security guard? You have some weird idealised version of what a security guard is.

​

>Those cameras look incredibly low to the ground to be of a tactical advantage

humans are mostly standing on the ground in most crime scenes. Low is not a tactical disadvantage. Not when it can move around.

​

>The jokes write themselves.

And yet you were made by your parents.

​

>Bro, you are really tying to convince me that a: slow moving, undefended, low to the ground, plastic, multi-thousand dollar attractive nuance is an advantage over security cameras... because... 3D Space?

Yup.

​

​

>How does 3D space offer an advantage over cameras and motion sensors that have a vantage point?

Explain that to be "expert."

Because moving on the ground is like .. exactly what the job of a security guard is. We like walk around and observe whats going on in exactly the same way this bot does.

​

>I left willingly because the hours never seem to match well to my graduate school program.

What are you doubting here ? the reason I left being a security guard ? What would one gain from lying about that. Its not like its some high tier profession that only the select few can do. I was making 13.50 an hour.

​

>Thank god.

For someone who knows literally 0 about what the job entails you sure like to pass judgement about what makes a good security officer.

In my own experience when a door or camera was tampered with it sent a level 1 alert to the control center of the site I was working on. Why would anyone choose a strategy that leads to several men from the control room immediately showing up where you are committing your crime in a minute or 2. This is not a good strategy or a common one.