It's not just the divorce lawyers. We have 3x as many lawyers per capita in the US as in the 1970s. The system is designed by lawyers for lawyers. They will create more bureaucracy and more procedure to consume any surplus.
There are 3x as many lawyers per capita in the US as we had in the 1970s. Credit agreements that used to be 50 pages are now 500. This increase in volume has not lead to any increase in actual value. The legal profession is a metastatic cancer on our society. Un-fuck this situation and maybe I'll think about taking your advice of not using a LLM.
This isn't how intelligence works. The LLM may not be able to play chess directly through inference, but it can write a program to do it and execute that program. Same as how human intelligence works. We can't fly, but we can build planes.
Poorly in what sense? I think human chess leagues are way more popular and fun than just playing a computer by yourself. Human oriented communities are always a vastly better experience than their digital counterparts.
There's more to games than simply winning you know.
And how many years of direct play and study does it take for a human to get good at chess or any other game? Absolutely no human ever could be good at chess just by reading a few books, or even every book on chess. That's just not how the brain works. If LLMs could do that they would truly be superintelligence.
> Absolutely no human ever could be good at chess just by reading a few books, or even every book on chess.
Maybe not, but you'd be surprised how little it takes.
A six year old child can learn the rules of chess well enough to be able to play legal moves only in a single day. And they can improve their game at a pace which is almost frightening to behold. I have taught children, and I've witnessed significant improvement materialise in a single game. LLMs have probably thousands of chess books, games, videos, etc in their training data, yet they are unable to even follow the rules.
This is, at the very least, interesting. It illustrates many of the things brains can do, which current ML systems in general, and LLMs in particular, can't.
It is interesting, but people are drawing the wrong conclusion from it. For one, LLMs don't go through a "chess learning phase". They're not analyzing a board as they're learning the rules or studying games to create a coherent model of chess. They're just imbibing raw relationships as isolated fragments of information. The fact that they can't unify this into a coherent model of chess playing in one shot and execute a competent game says nothing interesting about the limits of their intelligence. If you give frontier models the rules of chess in their context window, could they perform only legal moves? I bet they could, excepting trickier scenarios like pins and failing to respond to a check. But those kinds of scenarios have to be reinforced in any human player as well. Even Super GMs fall for mate-in-1's occasionally which is functionally equivalent to those kinds of failures.
We're obviously using different meanings for "good" here. But aside from that, it took 100's to 1000's of reinforcement iterations for your brother to play competently. While certainly impressive, that is still an entirely different category from piecing together disparate facts learned during training (LLMs aren't analyzing a board as they're learning the rules or ingesting PGN files), to executing a competent performance in one shot.
No, learning is definitely not a sign of super intelligence. I know words don’t mean anything anymore, but that is simply general intelligence, despite the claims we have reached this milestone.
What would be the point? MAD relies on everyone knowing you can take them out if they attack you. What does a space weapon offer additionally that makes the huge expense worthwhile?
MAD is not military doctrine and never has been. It's a philosophical concept that arose in the mid 1960s and gained column-inches in the press because it had a cool and ironic name. Even McNamara rejected it.
USA, China and Russia all plan to fight and win wars, not go out in a blaze with the other guy. And that includes 'nuclear warfighting' which involves the ability to command and control nuclear exchanges and come out the other side victorious.
I would argue that despite not being military doctrine, it has been effective. Nuclear deterence is demonstrably real. It is a form of Nash equilibrium.
I am not sure there is any limited nuclear exchange that is not so risky as to be worthless unless you just want to die.
Space based nuclear weapons do not improve your survivability. Space based nuclear missile interception might - if you could pretty much ensure you could take out the majority of your opponents missiles (star wars).
The problem there is it destabilises the Nash equilibrium of MAD and makes it more likely someone will initiate a first strike before your defensive capability is complete...
Controlling the high ground has been a critical element of warfare ever since the primary weapons were spears. If you want to claim that isn't the case then the burden of proof is on you.
Are you serious? Just because you have nuclear weapons doesn't mean all other forms of military are useless. I don't even know how to parse that argument to respond in more detail.
If we put responsibility for keeping kids safe on companies we will get 2 or 3. The only good option is that parents need to actually parent their kids.
Why not a layered system of all 3. Everyone starts in #3 by default, your grandma can do her shopping and banking and pay for parking without the constant risk of being scammed. Then jump through some hoops to get to #2 and/or #1. #2 has regulated adult content. #1 ends up only appealing to tech-types and so, due to self-selection, ends the Eternal September.
Because if 1 is an option then I can write software to automate 1 for the normies, which is exactly how the internet we know came into being. 2/3 have to be legally enforced.
This is soooo true. But unfortunately, whenever you confront a parent with their responsibilities, they immediately lash out with excuses. "How should I know." "There is already sooo much work to do." "In these times ..." All lazy ass excuses by people who obviously have no idea what responsibility they have.
This comment is just a lazy attempt at changing minds. Why don’t you get off your ass and actually institute real change in the world? We’re all waiting. This is your responsibility after all, according to me. From here on out, all unresolved problems are the fault of lynx97 being a lazy slackass. So says me, with the power of a random internet person assigning responsibilities. Consider yourself confronted. I’ll await your excuses.
To stay in context and say at least something to the weird ad hominem: I deliberately didn't father any children. There is no respoinsibility you might be able to assign. Contrary to actual parents, who very well know that they have responsibilities.
what about 4: my hardware I do what I want including connecting to other peoples hardware if I want.
In a lot of the ways we are exiting eternal september. most of the normies are already tech illiterate enough to lose their ancestral knowledge of how independent websites might work. they will be punted into their walled gardens more and more while the internet returns to people who are more tech literate again.
Government and taxes are the price we pay for having a civilization. If you don't trust your government institutions to do good by you, then you could go live on a deserted island somewhere and see how that works out for you.
Yes, you have a point. I must give the government more power because the only other alternative is to go live on a desert island by myself. Hard to argue with that brilliant logic.
People are trying to compromise Tesla and because this guy provides NTP services, and Tesla set their NTP up wrong, it appears to other people like his machine is part of Tesla.
Got it. The way it was phrased it made it sound like Assetnote was the party actually sending the exploits (which made me assume it was intentional testing going to the wrong target), not that they were coming in from unknown senders in the outside world.
Is that important context? I would say it's not. What if those companies already made massive profits and said "I think people are willing to pay more for this, so I'm going to raise the price." And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I've raised the price of my services many times in my career for exactly the same reason.
When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right.
There's literally trillions at stake for under-reporting these numbers. A lot of government benefits are tied to this not to mention political ramifications of high inflation. So I'll go with vibes (i.e. experienced reality) over some government re-balanced basket formula
reply