Some descriptors for ‘democratised’ software that people can slop for themselves:
Slop as single-use software
Slop as fast fashion
post
bow before the true champion of the working class, s e gyges:
a lot of opposition to AI is rent seeking, and the material incentives of being a rentier, even a small time one, lead you towards fascist conclusions from first principles
between him saying this, and other ai pushers declaring the ai conscious and being enslaved (and being actually fine with helping promulgating what they truly believe is slavery, because hey, you need to pay the rent), i am afraid something worse than usual entered the californian drinking water.
(not linking to the skeet on purpose).
replies:
Found another booster graph about AI 2027
wonder why ‘absolute horizons depend on calibration’ is written in the smallest text at the bottom of the page…
I have unfortunately stumbled upon some nonsense from r/singularity
shockingly, the top comments are calling bs:
”I'm sorry but I think this time line is a load of bull. "Human task duration at 80% success". How exactly do you put a millenium prize puzzle on such an axis? It doesn't even make any sense. Whoever is making this chart is just trying to stay relevant but his analysis holds little predictive power.”
They also missed how that graph is measuring software/coding tasks, while the OP was estimating based off math ability, which are two wildly different fields
replies:
Slop foundries solved the “slop is uncopyrightable” problem by making the output so awful that nobody would want to pinch it
IMF bearish on AI.
Anyway here’s my character, South Korean AI booster Bob Vylan: “Death, death to the IMF!”
replies:
Lesswrongers go full panpsychism: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wCY4oNHpH2HGYGSoP/the-user-in-the-llm-might-be-a-moral-patient-too-a-strange
To try to TLDR this multilayered bit of crazy... lesswrongers already theorize LLMs might be sapient and/or have morally meaningful internal experiences. Except... LLMs obviously "behave" wildly differently when prompted differently and especially when put into different "agent harnesses"... so the big brain follow-up thought is what if the different personas an LLM can exhibit are all different "people" (for the purposes of utilitarian accounting and/or what their internal experiences are like... the exact "theory" can vary by lesswronger). The even more insane full galaxy brain follow-up thought: what if the user's input to the LLM is forming yet another "person", like a copy/reflection/simulacrum of the user!
TLDR for the TLDR: What if not only the LLM was sentient/sapient, but also held a sentient/sapient simulacrum of the user inside!
replies:
Jonny took a look at Meta's "Wonder" model they just released. Here's how the thread starts:
The hourly history backup just failed in a way you should hear about plainly: the backup worker accidentally deleted the backup repo itself mid-run. The repo's entire git history and all the DB sidecar files up to watermark 330145 are gone — that deletion was the worker's own mistake, not a platform event.
view more:
next ›
top 50 comments