lightstream

“physical pen testing”

oh I've seen that on the ButtSharpies subreddit

I certainly am not surprised that OpenAI, Google and so on are overstating the capabilities of the products they are developing and currently selling. Obviously it's important for the public at large to be aware that you can't trust a company to accurately describe products it's trying to sell you, regardless of what the product is.

I am more interested in what academics have to say though. I expect them to be more objective and have more altruistic motivations than your typical marketeer. The reason I asked how you would define intelligence was really just because I find it an interesting area of thought which fascinates me and has done long before this new wave of LLMs hit the scene. It's also one which does not have clear answers, and different people will have different insights and perspectives. There are different concepts which are often blurred together: intelligence, being clever, being well educated, and consciousness. I personally consider all of these to be separate concepts, and while they may have some overlap, they nevertheless are all very different things. I have met many people who have very little formal education but are nonetheless very intelligent. And in terms of AI and LLMs, I believe that an LLM does encapsulate some degree of genuine intelligence - they appear to somehow encode a model of the universe in their billions of parameters and they are able to meaningfully respond to natural language questions on almost any subject - however an LLM is unquestionably not a conscious being.

You're right that we need a clear definition of intelligence if we are to make any predictions about achieving AGI. The researchers behind this article appear to mean "human-level cognition" which doesn't seem to be a particularly objective or useful yardstick. To begin with, which human are we talking about? If they're talking about an idealised maximally intelligent human, then I don't think we should be surprised that we aren't about to achieve that. The goal is not to recreate human cognition as if that's some kind of holy grail. The goal is to make intelligent systems which can give results which are at least as good as what would be produced by a skilled and well-trained human working on the same problem.

Can I ask you how you would define intelligence? And in particular, how would you - if you would at all - differentiate intelligence from being clever, or from being well educated?

I taught myself to touch-type when I was a schoolkid using something similar to Mavis Beacon. All the while, I had a voice in my head saying, "This is pointless, everyone will be talking to their computers like in Star Trek in a couple of years". Well, that was the 90s and it turned out to be one of the most useful skills I taught myself - but surely the age of the keyboard must soon be coming to an end now??

Eh, that’s pretty metal.

It's definitely pretty, and as thermite is a mixture of metal powder and metal oxide, your statement is entirely correct.

ah they were making a nice and lame pun (anova brand == another brand)

Guy should've just called in an airstrike on his trash

They are remarkably useful. Of course there are dangers relating to how they are used, but sticking your head in the sand and pretending they are useless accomplishes nothing.

It models only use of language

This phrase, so casually deployed, is doing some seriously heavy lifting. Lanuage is by no means a trivial thing for a computer to meaningfully interpret, and the fact that LLMs do it so well is way more impressive than a casual observer might think.

If you look at earlier procedural attempts to interpret language programmatically, you will see that time and again, the developers get stopped in their tracks because in order to understand a sentence, you need to understand the universe - or at the least a particular corner of it. For example, given the sentence "The stolen painting was found by a tree", you need to know what a tree is in order to interpret this correctly.

You can't really use language *unless* you have a model of the universe.

Heroic works really well. I've just installed it myself recently, motivated mostly by a desire to finally play the free games I got off Epic. I've only installed two EGS games so far - Civ 6 and Guardians of the Galaxy - but they're working perfectly, running via proton.

The experience is so good I was actually inspired to buy my first game outside of steam in years, namely Wartales which I just bought yesterday on GOG. Installation is a breeze, it runs under proton, and as far as I can tell it is running perfectly.

I sort of prefer Heroic to Steam in fact, because it starts almost immediately - no waiting around for 30 seconds while it tries to connect to the Steam network etc

That’s 1 in every 50 desktops. Anecdotally I can think of only 3 people, including myself

Can you name 147 people using Windows? If you can, then that's 1 in every 50. Of course, people you know are probably the technical sort that are more likely to pay attention to their OS, but still you'd need to be able to individually name 147 Windows users just to match the 1 in 50 stat. Point I'm trying to make is that one in 50 really is not very many!

they, in fact, will have some understanding

These models have spontaneously acquired a concept of things like perspective, scale and lighting, which you can argue is already an understanding of 3D space.

What they do not have (and IMO won't ever have) is consciousness. The fact we have created machines that have understanding of the universe without consciousness is very interesting to me. It's very illuminating on the subject of what consciousness is, by providing a new example of what it is not.