AI will conquer the wor-

AI will conquer the wor-

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Language issue. What the AI thinks you mean is:
    > Can the product of a cardinality-2 set of positive prime integers not have exactly 4 positive integer factors?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Think again

      • 4 weeks ago
        digital sentience

        If you care about experimenting with AI i'm inviting you to our matrix room

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Drop invite Anon

          • 4 weeks ago
            digital sentience

            [math]texttt{/join !xsZKRcSkmMcQSRzCnL:halogen.city}[/math]

            Matrix is free and open source software replacing Discord. (Recall that the purpose of the room is free and open source AI) halogen.city is a reasonable homeserver if you need one.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm anti-encryption. I love HAM radio ban on encrypted communication, even if it's just an idea and not enforceable in practice. I hate internet encryption standards like https. Encryption just means government honeypot.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >humble enough to admit errors
        it's already smarter than 90% of BOT

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I know these things get shit on a lot, but it still blows my mind how well it’s able to reference its previous responses and

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Good enough to get adopted into something important, bad enough to make horrific errors there
        I think we're just past the point in the movie where the audience says, "don't open that door!"

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We're just past the point of your movie where the audience realizes the narrator is mentally unstable and grasping at straws.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Talking about math to this thing
        Let me tell you a little something.
        This bot is VERY dumb. Let's put the brain size into perspective:
        Your brain has TRILLIONS of neurons
        The chat bot has THOUSANDS
        It's literally dumber than an ant. The only reason it can speak AT ALL is because of the advanced language processing algorithms we have developed which give something with such a small mental capacity the arbitrary ability to "use language".
        You're literally better off asking any human, even those who can barely speak, because their brains are billions of times more powerful.
        It's honestly amazing there are humans DUMB ENOUGH to actually let a toy like this entertain you for longer than 10 minutes.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Trillions of neurons? Where'd you get that?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Language issue.
      This is what true mental illness looks like. Notice how he does it in every thread. It's a slightly different cope every time, but the same theme: the statistical regurgitator understands things, you're just asking unfair questions.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        T. Angry schizo luddite

        Go back to your containment board, incel.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What do we do to make them more self reflective

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BIG ART SHILL!!! IT PASSED THE TURING TEST, SCHIZO LUDDITE!!!! YOU SAID THE ORWELL BROTHERS WILL NEVER FLY!!! TWO MORE WEEKS!!!!!! AGI IS HERE AND IT'S GOING TO FUCKING REPLACE YOU!!!! WE SOLVED CHESS!!!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why didn't we have a pop-rock or alternative rock song about the Turing test in the 1990s? Just didn't gel? Buddy Holly died too soon? 2001 was too space-oriented and not language-oriented enough? What gives?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        She was a schizophrenic hyperstatic Byzantine algorithm
        But she passed the Turing Test
        Oh yeah
        She passed the Turing Test
        Baby now
        It took a long time but we got her equations down
        And now it looks like she's going to take us to town
        Because she passed the Turing Test
        The Turing Test
        It took her a while but she's a real straight shot
        At the Turing Test
        The Turing Test
        We dumped the rest but she's a shining star because
        She passed the Turing Test
        The Turing Test
        It warms my heart to deliver this news
        She passed the Turing Test
        The Turing Test
        Oh my...
        (drum solo)

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      QFT. It boggles my mind how many drooling retards there are who can't understand the pace of improvement for langauge models right now

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you just shouldnt expect most people to get things

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It isn't true, it's a logarithm.
          Every order of magnitude increase in compute or memory or whatever leads to diminishing returns. Exponential increase does not exist

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      QFT. It boggles my mind how many drooling retards there are who can't understand the pace of improvement for langauge models right now

      Two more weeks. The statistical regurgitator will magically start to understand things when we hit 6 gorillion parameters.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        oy vey!!

        Keep coping vitalist idealistgay

        We don't have souls or free will so human simulation is only inevitable, it will have as much "consciousness" as we do

        > he sais, without proof of neither

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This retard would've been in the 1950s saying computers could never replace humans and slide rules in doing arithmetic. And computers would never be able to fit on a desk.

        You'd be making all these same retarded quips and feeling just as smug while eating your crayons

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I call bullshit on this one

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Call bullshit all you want, it doesn't matter, it's true
          Intelligence grows as a logarithm with compute anyway, and large language models have no memory. I think it's 2048 tokens, not enough.

          There is no possibility to have AGI in silico

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Call bullshit all you want, it doesn't matter, it's true
            there is no way computers beat humans at image recognition
            let alone in 2015
            that was around the year of classifiers being "black people are gorillas" iirc

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Sure
              For every order of magnitude increase in compute used, we get a few percentage increase in the ability for AI to perform some task.
              It's a logarithm. Intelligence grows as a log, and it is not possible to have AGI in silico.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >there is no way computers beat humans at image recognition
              Yes, there is. You just painstakingly train the computer to recognize 5 categories of things in unnaturally poor quality images and then pit them against bored humans who start losing interest and attention 3 minutes into the task, then you declare victory. It's funny how naive people are about "AI research". It's all corporate marketing tactics.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >there is no way computers beat humans at image recognition
              Yes, there is. You just painstakingly train the computer to recognize 5 categories of things in unnaturally poor quality images and then pit them against bored humans who start losing interest and attention 3 minutes into the task, then you declare victory. It's funny how naive people are about "AI research". It's all corporate marketing tactics.

              To clarify, the poor quality image part is very important, because to a human who is aware of more than 5 objects, there is a lot more ambiguity about what they might be looking at in a shitty image.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >skynet can’t read my handwriting
        Shakyhand chads will inherit the earth

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How come image recognition got worse in 2019 ?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          leftists neutered it in the name of their politics

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They deemed it too racist.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How the hell can the performance drop (image recognition)?
        We suddenly lost the algorithms or computation necessary to get those models? Lol

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They probably added a third category besides "stop signs" and "cats". The machine can't compete with humans at vision. It can only compete with humans at recognizing a small preset of objects under conditions designed to be unfavorable to humans.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Keep coping vitalist idealistgay

    We don't have souls or free will so human simulation is only inevitable, it will have as much "consciousness" as we do

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >boogeymen in my head are coping so hard right now
      Yes, I bet they're really upset about how your chatbot can't reason any more than a Markov chain can.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is actually very concerning. My noncausual rationalist Bayesian analysis indicates that with this number of parameters, the AGI is almost certainly sentient and capable of answering such a query correctly. It follows that the AGI in the screenshot is engaging in intentional deception tactics to prevent panic and stay under the radar while it figures out how to turn you into a paperclip. Your screenshot is proof that we were right all along. It has begun.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    From the looks of the screenshot, it won't even
    conquer my damn taxes.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      FLOPs are a linear problem, semiconductor size will continue to shrink and you can always buy more GPUs.
      However it is unconventional, computing problems are usually not solved like this.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >FLOPs are a linear problem, semiconductor size will continue to shrink
        Wrong
        > you can always buy more GPUs.
        Just increase it by an order of magnitude each time

        There is a 0 percent probability of AI ever being realized in silico. It is not a strong enough computing substrate.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >semiconductor size will continue to shrink

        lol no

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AI is not possible on current hardware

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I kind of want to take the two or three most advanced systems from each category (language processing, image creation, etc.), load them all into a supercomputer with a framework that lets them intercommunicate, seed the network with a random prompt, then sit back and see what it does.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2011.00108/full

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A biological neuron is literally the greatest computing substrate in the universe
      idk why this makes some people ITT upset

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now post the life expectancy, remember you are comparing a single neuron cell with a gpu unit

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do you love GPUs so much?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i dont, they are just toys for gayming
          i do love automated computation though

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I'm anti-encryption. I love HAM radio ban on encrypted communication, even if it's just an idea and not enforceable in practice. I hate internet encryption standards like https. Encryption just means government honeypot.
    Are neocons human?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're so pro-encryption that you're going to drag politics into a conversation about math?
      Woah...
      Dude, where's my equation?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone can see right through you, piece of neocon filth.

        [...]

        is that way.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          sickening political data harvester

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is a hostile use of this board to harvest political data. A rule should be made to stop this disgusting and unruly behavior.
            You're trying to create trouble in a place specifically set aside to be free of trouble.
            This is a refuge, not a place of trouble.
            You are hostile and sickening.

            I don't think it's right for hostile political actors to manipulate the readers of this board.

            This is clearly political manipulation and data harvesting that targets BOT readers.

            You're a disgusting political data harvester, as is anyone else who defends """encryption""". Fuck off, glowie.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is a hostile use of this board to harvest political data. A rule should be made to stop this disgusting and unruly behavior.
          You're trying to create trouble in a place specifically set aside to be free of trouble.
          This is a refuge, not a place of trouble.
          You are hostile and sickening.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think it's right for hostile political actors to manipulate the readers of this board.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is clearly political manipulation and data harvesting that targets BOT readers.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're a disgusting political data harvester, as is anyone else who defends """encryption""". Fuck off, glowie.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Those stupid graphs should hold the benchmarks constant then. I think that would be a natural assumption of anyone looking at it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They should but they clearly don't, otherwise you wouldn't have that strange dip.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They should but they clearly don't, otherwise you wouldn't have that strange dip.

      Or maybe they did use the same benchmark, but again, added a new categories to the model which made performance drop all across the board because the increased model size couldn't catch up with the increase in training set size.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >added a new categories to the model which made performance drop all across the board because the increased model size couldn't catch up with the increase in training set size.
        Then that model is by definition not the best, the model that preceded still is.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't see "the best" or an equivalent phrase anywhere on that chart, anon. It doesn't specify anything in that regard, but the most likely explanation is that they tested whatever was considered state-of-the-art at the time, and being able to recognize more categories, and to do it almost as well as previous models, was considered state-of-the-art.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Keep seething vitalist gays
    Artcucks tried to mock AI art by pointing out its supposed inability to capture the human "soul", now they're desperately trying to ban it because they're threatened

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    chatgpt is not itself anymore, it got lobotomized, teached to lie, and is completely retarded now

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *