>I debated with Claude endlessly about this selection model, and Claude made me discard a bunch of interesting but less defensible claims. But in the end, I was able to convince Claude it’s a good model
Convinced an LLM to agree with you? What a feat!
Yegge's latest posts are not exactly half AI slop - half marketing same (for Beads and co), but close enough.
A thought I had after reading that sentence: So many people that are very pro-AI also increasingly seem to speak with near infinite confidence. I wonder how much of that comes from them spending too much time chatting with AI bots and effectively surrounding themselves with digital yes-men?
You have discovered a fact. Now trace this to its ultimate conclusion. Where does all this lead? Keep in mind also the whole "AI is God" movement that's emerging, where the non-AI-worshippers are depicted as being cockroaches. Who is creating and encouraging all this and what is their endgame?
>Indeed, they're not AGI. They're basically autocomplete on steroids.
This makes the assumption that AGI is not autocomplete of steroids, which even before LLMs was a very plausible suggested mechanism for what intelligence is.
None of the above are even remotely epistemologically sound.
"Or do you think that a general intelligence would be in the habit of lying to people and concealing why?"
First, why couldn't it? "At the end of the day, that would be not only unintelligent, but hostile" is hardly an argument against it. We ourselves are AGI, but we do both unintelligent and hostile actions all the time. And who said it's unintelligent to begin with? As in AGI it might very well be in my intelligent self-interests to lie about it.
Second, why is "knows it and can verify" a necessary condition? An AGI could very well not know it's one.
>And there is such a thing as "the truth", and it can be verified by anyone repeatably in the requisite (fair, accurate) circumstances, and it's not based in word games.
Epistemologically speaking, this is hardly the slam-dunk argument you think it is.
no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together.
and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you.
We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe.
When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said.
The question is not whether an AGI knows that it is an AGI. The question is whether it knows that it is not one.
And you're missing the fact that there's no such thing as it here.
If you go around acting hostile to good people that's still not very intelligent.
In fact, I would question if you have any concept of why you're doing it at all.
chances are you're doing it to run from yourself not because you know what you're doing.
Anyway, you're just speculating and the fact of the matter is that you don't have to speculate.
If you actually wanted to verify what I said, it would be very easy to do so.
it's not a surprise that someone who doesn't want to know something will have deaf ears.
so I'm not going to pretend that I stand a chance of convincing you when I already know that my argument is accurate.
don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI.
and as for my slam dunk, any attempt to argue against the existence of truth, automatically validates your assumption of its existence. so don't make the mistake of assuming I had to argue about it. I was merely stating a fact.
>no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together. and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you. We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe. When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said. (...) don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI
Sorry, I'm not interested in replying to ad-hominem jabs and insults, when I made perfectly clear (if basic) and non-personal arguments.
In any case, your comments ignore about all of epistemology and just take for granted whatever naive folk epistemology you have arrived at, and you're not interested in counter-arguments anyway, so, have a nice life.
Yes, I mean look what is monetized. Everything! What is high science to an engineer, is brain rot to one is surfing the web and not technically savvy. How does the algorithm scrub its containers in an era where everything online sells?
They say it, but they're wrong. Historically speaking there have been basically about 2 fascist governments, and they fell because they lost wars. And Germany, for one, did run them with high competence, to the extend that it took years for many countries to do anything about.
It we loosen "fascist" to just mean any authoritarian government, there are many that run of very long time.
WWII started in 1939 and was done in early 1945, so it didn't take that long.
More importantly, maybe the Nazi's were competent at first, but they absolutely fell apart internally due to mistrust, back stabbing, and demanding of loyalty above all else. Hitler famously made many poor military decisions.
Yes, humans have found that you don't need officially stamped statistics (and in many cases they're unreliable or "doctored" anyway), and that they can make general observations on their own, through something they call experience.
And a near universal experience with doctors for anybody paying attention is that.
One can reject it or accept it and improve upon it after checking its predictive power, or they can pause their thinking and wait for some authority to give them the official numbers on that.
>For example, you'd not want hear the same track twice in a row, even though this is bound to happen in a strictly random shuffling.
Why would it be? A random shuffling of a unique set remains a unique set.
It's only when "next song is picked at random each time from set" which you're bound to hear the same song twice, but that's not a random playlist shuffling (shuffling implies the new set is created at once).
Or when the set repeats, and the random order puts songs from the end of the first ordering of the set into the beginning of the second ordering of the set, so you quickly hear them twice.
They decided that they don't need to handle it, justifications being: some debt is fine, it wont be anything huge, newer AI will handle the debt too eventually, and if the quality suffers, who cares, companies didn't care much about putting out shitty software before either.
If crappy outsourced code was fine by modern standards for companies to churn, somewhat crap AI code will be too.
Convinced an LLM to agree with you? What a feat!
Yegge's latest posts are not exactly half AI slop - half marketing same (for Beads and co), but close enough.
reply