The key is not to reason with it but to give it “signals” that it will take as gospel. Like “cache is a persistent and common issue” and “test verification is meant to be done in a Windows VM”

A million dollars would be 10 teachers at 6 figures, could have been 5 thousand teachers for a year.

It’s hyperbolic but they do that all the time for their own team. Got my comment deleted when I called out that lady who is saying we need to put “rich zionists” into concentration camps. The reason they gave: zionism

I guess it’s like describing color to a blind man. I am telling you that others experience books in a much deeper and profound way but you are unable to relate and unable see the point that is being made. So you as a person blind to this will either have to trust other people have vision you lack or insist we are all blind.

You can lower the bar for what you consider intelligent, but that doesn’t make the LLM any more capable.

And no, I am not talking about emotions in regards to reading a book. Do you simply experience a book as a set of words and emotions attached to those words? I think you are selling yourself short in order to put LLMs on a pedestal.

I meant LLMs and people experience reading a book differently in the internal sense. Or at least for some people.

That “intelligence” will tell you how it is not as intelligent if you ask directly. This is not because it’s intelligent and KNOWS it’s limitations but because it picked up on my signal for what I wanted and gave something resembling that to me. You could ask it the opposite thing and arrive at a very different conclusion. https://claude.ai/share/97859aae-beb2-4245-a8b1-460122ee4aa1

I would even say the analogies it gave aren’t entirely accurate. A person reading a book experiences it very differently than an LLM. And this is a key insight to an element of the Turing test where you ask it to explain some poetry (not simply write a poem).

I meant signal manipulation, but sure, that includes manipulating humans since we are just another signal input. That isn’t a statement on values, just an objective description of how it works.

If we crowd source a rocket i am told they don’t ask questions when we offer them a seat. Oh wait, that was just another lie. I guess a guillotine would be more cost effective than a rocket…

Because signal matching and manipulation is not intelligence unless you’re willing to admit that is all you are capable of.

It’s impressive until it isn’t because it decided to “fix” an issue by simply ignoring an exception.

I told you before, I am not interested in debating values. Questioning my own values or misrepresenting my own position is not going to goad me into debating you. It only gives me more evidence that such an effort would be futile in regards to facts and the truth.

If my opinion is of no consequence then let us both find a more meaningful endeavor

Wake me when China actually invades a country then I will start calling them imperialist like Russia

Because the assurance was the basis for the treaty negotiations that followed. You can say that doesn’t not justify aggression, and I would agree. But to say assurances have no bearing in the matter is materially false

I am flattered my opinion on Elon means so much to you, so I will throw you a bone. You left out some facts I consider important, like he had to go to court to be retroactively considered a founder. A person who values a good debate would address such common criticisms head on instead of pretending that is not a relevant fact to be addressed. I simply value a good debate and this is not it.

I am saying that when treaties and assurances are ignored you risk war. That is the case here.

Edit: here the receipts: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

US secretary of state gave verbal assurances in 1990 that were abandoned later.

Post cold war understanding was that there was going to be a buffer zone between Russia and Nato. Ukraine being brought into Nato or the EU was a known line in the sand that the US crossed. Does that absolve Russia of their aggression? No it does not. But it is like with Pearl Harbor, the US blockade of Japan provoked them to attack. Does not absolve Japan, but the idea they attacked purely out of their own aggression is false.

It’s okay if people value different things. I am fine with you valuing different facts. What I am not okay with is debating values, that’s a waste of time, but I also understand if you disagree. However, its my own time to spend how I choose and I choose not to debate your values. Have a nice day.

Transmitting power to the mainland was the company’s original pitch. But those cables are expensive so now they are pitching AI workloads in the ocean that will communicate via satellite