ggppjj

Question 9 broke me.

That’s called a sneakernet. Although, if you’re talking actual pigeons, you may be interested in RFC1149.

I’m gonna teach you a lesson on improv: “yes, and”.

A crucial part of your statement is that it knows that it’s untrue, which it is incapable of. I would agree with you if it were actually capable of understanding.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c64160-308c-8011-9bdf-c53379620e40

A false statement would be me saying that the color of a light that I cannot see and have never seen that is currently red is actually green without knowing. I am just as easily probably right as I am probably wrong, statistics are involved.

A lie would be me knowing that the color of a light that I am currently looking at is currently red and saying that it is actually green. No statistics, I’ve done this intentionally and the only outcome of my decision to act was that I spoke a falsehood.

AIs can generate false statements, yes, but they are not capable of lying. Lying requires cognition, which LLMs are, by their own admission and by the admission of the companies developing them, at the very least not currently capable of, and personally I believe that it’s likely that LLMs never will be.

Ask chatgpt, I’m done arguing effective consciousness vs actual consciousness.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c64160-308c-8011-9bdf-c53379620e40

What do you believe that it is actively doing?

Again, it is very cool and incredibly good math that provides the next word in the chain that most likely matches what came before it. They do not think. Even models that deliberate are essentially just self-reinforcing the internal math with what is basically a second LLM to keep the first on-task, because that appears to help distribute the probabilities better.

I will not answer the brain question until LLMs have brains also.

We did, a long time ago. It’s called an encyclopedia.

If humans can’t be trusted to only provide facts, how can we be trusted to make a machine that only provides facts? How do we deal with disputed truths? Grey areas?

It is incapable of knowledge, it is math, what it says is determined by what is fed into it. If it admits to lying, it was trained on texts that admit to lying and the math says that it is most likely that it should apologize using the following tokenized responses with the following weights to probabilities etc.

It apologizes because math says that the most likely response is to apologize.

Edit: you can just ask it y’all

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c64160-308c-8011-9bdf-c53379620e40

I strongly worry that humans really weren’t ready for this “good enough” product to be their first “real” interaction with what can easily pass as an AGI without near-philosophical knowledge of the difference between an AGI and an LLM.

It’s obscenely hard to keep the fact that it is a very good pattern-matching auto-correct in mind when you’re several comments deep into a genuinely actually no lie completely pointless debate against spooky math.

I think the important point is that LLMs as we understand them do not have intent. They are fantastic at providing output that appears to meet the requirements set in the input text, and when they actually do meet those requirements instead of just seeming to they can provide genuinely helpful info and also it’s very easy to not immediately know the difference between output that looks correct and satisfies the purpose of an LLM vs actually being correct and satisfying the purpose of the user.

That was where it was uploaded first, the takedowns were for it being later hosted on azure cloud services

I’m genuinely glad you were able to employ an amount of critical thinking that it would appear that OP had not done. It’s unfortunately incredibly necessary with basically anything you can find on the internet, and equally unfortunately lacking.

“But it had shitty URL hijacking redirect ads and I had trouble finding it in search engines! IT’S BEING REPRESSED!”

Goddamn not everything has to become a hypercapitalist merch moment. Don’t fall for unofficial unaffiliated “promises” to donate “a portion”, just fucking donate directly and save yourself the trouble that the shirt or mug or whatever would give you after the second wash.

Reporting about how the maps team reclassified the US as a “sensitive country”, a la: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/28/google-reclassifies-us-as-sensitive-country-like-china-russia-.html

Step two of the plan you outlined was inverted by Google, but the effect is the same: IIRC it only shows up that way for US users.

Edit: apparently that was either a lie or incomplete info, see comments elsewhere in this thread.

Prove your extraordinary claim.

I’m lucky enough to live over a business that allows me to use their Internet as a part of my lease, I do have 25Mbps. A marked upgrade from the non-business options in the area.