swlabr @ swlabr @awful.systems

Only Bayes Can Judge Me

---

Read more

Posts

40

Comments

2,037

Joined

2 yr. ago

I saw this, so now you all get to: Alex Karp performs a stationary Gatotsu with a sabre, don’t ask me why.

Databricks CEO: “we’ve already achieved AGI fam, the haters just keep moving the goalposts”

The real question: are you Shakespeare x Fair Youth or Fair Youth x Shakespeare?

No, it's not reasonable. This is what you're saying:

1. Matter can have consciousness (see: humans).
2. Computers are made of matter.

• Therefore, it's conceivable that a computer can have consciousness.

This is logically valid but meaningless. There's nothing to be done with this. There's no reason to be had here.

Then we have the banal take of "if we had a magic box with infinite capabilities, it could do X!", where, in this case, X happens to be "have consciousness". Ok! Great. You have fun playing in the sandpit, thinking about your magic box. I'm gonna smoke cigarettes and play slot machines for an hour.

It's only when we start bringing the discussion down to simulations on a Turing machine that this stuff gets interesting. But that's not what y'all are trying to talk about, because you haven't read the goddamn essay.

Man. Using Sonnet 18 here is just utterly brilliant. There’s a lot that could be said but my angle is: you can’t directly compare someone to a summer’s day; it has to be done through poetry and metaphor. Shit, cat. Shaka when the walls fell.

ah, I see. Ok. Well, based on all that, you haven’t actually engaged with anything from the post, nor have you said anything non-trivial. Was hoping that you’d at least say something wrong instead.

How do you define consciousness?

money please!

He’s saying the loud part out quiet

What’s kinda fun is that Yud prefaces this with basically “i have not personally read up on the zizian texts”, and then follows it up with this stuff. Now, did he make this stuff up himself in a weird ego play, or did he hear it from someone else and decided to hold onto it, also as an ego play?

in the shipped club. straight up 'glomarizing it'. and by 'it', haha, well. let's justr say. My peanits.

Saying that a 30-year-old cannot have sex with a 17-year-old (in CA) or a 16-year-old (in NY) is not a crazy law; it is the sort of "I would like to live in a civilization" law that I prefer to obey.

age of consent quoting aside, why would you make it sound like you only follow this law because you want to live in a society

He knows that his flunkies will happily parrot his new toy words with no hesitation. To that I say, to all of Yud’s ideas and writing, I bartleby-the-scrivenerize them.

the implication here is that you think that all reasonable response generators are indistinguishable, e.g. you think your sister is a clanker.

Tangent: I looked through that sequence. The premise is that once a month, Habryka writes a mini-essay that repackages some bland corporate insight (e.g. Pareto principle, "fail fast", etc.) as an internal document of Lightcone's core principles. Lightcone is a company of 7 people.

great job, but there is still so much more to be done

The satan thing makes a certain kind of sense. Probably catering to a bunch of different flavours of repressed: grindr republicans, covenant eyes users, speaking-in-tongues enthusiasts, etc.

an artifact with no art in it?

an ifact

Part of me wants an Ito-created body-horror metaphor for LLMs. The rest of me knows that LLMs are so mundane that the metaphor would probably still be shite.

I think I’ve heard Rationalism described as a cult incubator

Aside from the fact that rationalism is a cult in and of itself, this is true, no matter how you slice it. You can mean it with absolute glowing praise or total shade and either way it’s still true. Adhering to rationalist principles is pretty much reprogramming yourself to be susceptible to the subset of cults already associated with Rationalism.