l'empathie mécanique @dpwiz@qoto.org
- Monad m
- m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
- Previously
- https://mastodon.social/@dpwiz
- Making games
- https://haskell-game.dev
- Games made
- https://icrbow.itch.io
Toots as he pleases.
Joined Apr 2022
@dsp @gregeganSF I actually agree with Ted's (i.e. F.Chollet's) definition: intelligence is an ability to master new tasks and pick an appropriate mastery for the task at hand.
This swiftly denies intelligence to calculators and thermostats, grants it to humans, and even expands it to "collective intelligence" and, yes, "artificial intelligence".
@Shamar Of course it is hallucinated. This is how a brain works. I just took time to prune particularly outrageous candidates for the next word 😅
l'empathie mécanique
boosted
@gregeganSF Wow. The text is so profoundly myopic I'm surprised it came from an author who writes about alien minds. Maybe I shouldn't be as he may have a knee jerk reaction to encroachment on his turf, the language.
The opening shot is a masterpiece: "Whatever the art is, AIs sure can't do it".
And I love the illustration too.
But this admission is misplaced.
It all follows from the omission of what kind of AIs we're talking about. From the headline we can read the broad claim "whatever the AI is, it can't do art (whatever it is)".
It then gets narrowed down to "current generation of commercial/public LLMs attached to a chat interface".
The core point is that such a system can't make choices that would be "its own" and it just autocompletes the user input from the internet corpus.
That's a load-bearing "just", but I'll let it slide.
Amusingly, Ted goes on a side quest of training efficiency which is irrelevant to the central claim, but it stands out how the author of "alien mind" stories fails to recognize that the thing under inspection is different from animal brains.
Anyway, the claim gets backed by the assumption that there's no light inside, thus no-one to make choices for the art (as a package of choices made, by the local definition).
And this is where he trips up on that silent narrowing of AI.
Sure, public chatlike models aren't agentic. If anything, they are steered away specifically from being anything like that and into the autocomplete realm since this is where commercial interests are. And, as he correctly points out, there's demand for "no effort, only demands" and the corps are happy to oblige.
In a way, he gets to a wallpaper market in search of a poetry group. Yes, the corpos are selling the idea of creativity to users, which is arguably dishonest. But such is our marketing culture of the day. Nevertheless, an inverse of bad take doesn't make a good support for his claims.
At least he does recognize the emerging sub-genre of "let's sift through the boatloads of generated slop and maybe try to nudge it somewhere interesting". And with the growing interest a tool support will come, that's for sure.
Sorry, I'm meandering again, gotta write more essays (=
In the end the claim narrows down to "it would take more than a few years to make a truly autonomous system that would make salient choices to produce quality art pieces".
Now that's a grounded prediction for which the evidence can be collected. And I would love to see an essay/paper that does just that.
But that is very, very far away from what the headline says.
Instead of delving into (sorry) the topic, Ted produced some textual slop by rehashing the already stale claims. Ironic.
@gregeganSF Wow. The text is so profoundly myopic I'm surprised it came from an author who writes about alien minds. Maybe I shouldn't be as he may have a knee jerk reaction to encroachment on his turf, the language.
The opening shot is a masterpiece: "Whatever the art is, AIs sure can't do it".
And I love the illustration too.
But this admission is misplaced.
It all follows from the omission of what kind of AIs we're talking about. From the headline we can read the broad claim "whatever the AI is, it can't do art (whatever it is)".
It then gets narrowed down to "current generation of commercial/public LLMs attached to a chat interface".
The core point is that such a system can't make choices that would be "its own" and it just autocompletes the user input from the internet corpus.
That's a load-bearing "just", but I'll let it slide.
Amusingly, Ted goes on a side quest of training efficiency which is irrelevant to the central claim, but it stands out how the author of "alien mind" stories fails to recognize that the thing under inspection is different from animal brains.
Anyway, the claim gets backed by the assumption that there's no light inside, thus no-one to make choices for the art (as a package of choices made, by the local definition).
And this is where he trips up on that silent narrowing of AI.
Sure, public chatlike models aren't agentic. If anything, they are steered away specifically from being anything like that and into the autocomplete realm since this is where commercial interests are. And, as he correctly points out, there's demand for "no effort, only demands" and the corps are happy to oblige.
In a way, he gets to a wallpaper market in search of a poetry group. Yes, the corpos are selling the idea of creativity to users, which is arguably dishonest. But such is our marketing culture of the day. Nevertheless, an inverse of bad take doesn't make a good support for his claims.
At least he does recognize the emerging sub-genre of "let's sift through the boatloads of generated slop and maybe try to nudge it somewhere interesting". And with the growing interest a tool support will come, that's for sure.
Sorry, I'm meandering again, gotta write more essays (=
In the end the claim narrows down to "it would take more than a few years to make a truly autonomous system that would make salient choices to produce quality art pieces".
Now that's a grounded prediction for which the evidence can be collected. And I would love to see an essay/paper that does just that.
But that is very, very far away from what the headline says.
Instead of delving into (sorry) the topic, Ted produced some textual slop by rehashing the already stale claims. Ironic.
Sonnet absolutely smoked Gemini in a Haskell coding task 
@ericflo "work from home"/"back to office" related firings and attempts to restaff 🤔
@reidrac@mastodon.sdf.org 1.5h at 4k resolution, then a few manual passes to remove noise
Long time, no SIMD #Haskell
JK, the naivest stupidest binary tree blows fancy 4-way SIMDed BVH out of the water.
Actually, it may be slower by itself, but multicore apparently *destroys* wide instruction performance. At the same time cache^W completely oblivious scalar traversal is happy to run on all the capabilities available.
High ceremony 4-wide or primitive 10-/20-/whatever-wide? 
@amiloradovsky Apparently the original form was
* Socrates is human.
* Everything human is an animal.
* Therefore, Socrates is an animal.
Therefore, this is a medieval trolling, later adopted by the logicians in a milder form, losing its punchline in the process.
@boilingsteam Would the donate to support it?
@simonmic TL:DR: it is, but it doesn't matter anyway.
Don't use social media for private chats.
@calmeilles Why don't they do that now and require external incentives instead?
@calmeilles I expect the regulations without a means to expect some reasonable ROI would be sabotaged by very, very, very, VERY shitty pieces of toxic plastic duds.
@BartoszMilewski This is the central problem of governance in Russia. After so many years of systematic breeding for loyalty instead of competence, the morons are far and wide.
If you're an intelligent being and want to have a seat at the table you need to be guilty of something. With compromise being a price for admission, those non-morons who are in are basically evil and held in contempt by the people.
The hope has left the nation.
@BartoszMilewski Mutiny? In Russia? In 2024?
They're pretty damn well know that it couldn't.
The RT book subtitles refer to the scene rendering times 😅
* A few balls: renders in one weekend
* Textured rotating cubes with fog and stuff: takes the next week
* Real meshes and scenes like *that palace*: the rest of your life
@timbray Unfortunately it contains some significant manipulations making it.. idk, suspicious at best.
- Monad m
- m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b
- Previously
- https://mastodon.social/@dpwiz
- Making games
- https://haskell-game.dev
- Games made
- https://icrbow.itch.io
Toots as he pleases.
Joined Apr 2022
