(Epistemic status: This is super trivial information) (Note 2: there is a timely Culture war issue that triggered this post but I will not be mentioning any Culture war issues in this post) Imagine you worked for the US mint, and somebody was betting that a coin you manufactured was...
It's interesting how much of this was computer vision problems. Inability to look at the screen and determine which set of pixels is the stairs or the complete inability to differentiate cutable tree's from ones that cannot be cut. That part at least seems like the kind of problem that would go away in a year if significant effort was devoted toward the problem.
I find it fascinating how this set of children's video games from the 90s does a better job of showing off my frustrations with large language models than anything else. When you give them small concrete narrow tasks and can reliably test their output they are incredibly useful, (ex... (read more)
>I'm not sure that TAS counts as "AI" since they're usually compiled by humans
Agreed, it's more "this is what the limit looks like"
>Still, I'd say this is more a programmed "bot" than an AI in the sense we care about.
Is stockfish 8 not an AI? I feel like the goalposts of what counts as "Ai" keep getting shifted. Pokebotbad is an "AI" that searches to solve the pokemon state space
I'll mention beating pokemon isn't that big of a challenge in and of itself, what's important here is that this thing that wasn't trained to do pokemon can. *
Depending on how strict you want to be with what you call AI beating pokemon we have Ai's that beat pokemon in less than 2 hours or if you want to go with the interpretation that "AI beating pokemon is a program that beats pokemon" we have "Ai's" that beat pokemon in less than 2 minutes or less than 1:30 if you want a more strict definition of "beat the game".
Yeah that's fair, I'm just so used to American odds for gambling that I mentally use them all the time for these sorts of things.
Probably should have used good old fashioned odds instead.
The reason casino's show something like "Yankee's +110 Red sox -120" is so you can easily see the casino's rake or something.
American odds can be basically interpreted as "The Net amount you win after making a $100 bet" So if the odds are +150 you win $150 PLUS your initial $100 bet if you win the bet.
Negative american odds means "the amount you have to be to win $100" so odds o -230 would mean you have to bet $230 to win $100
As I said epistemic status "Trivial"
This is something trivial but it's worth noticing.
(Epistemic status: This is super trivial information)
(Note 2: there is a timely Culture war issue that triggered this post but I will not be mentioning any Culture war issues in this post)
Imagine you worked for the US mint, and somebody was betting that a coin you manufactured was unfair, now you work for the US mint and you know this coin is fair, it isn't weighted and the edge alignment is perfect. The person making the bet going to use a coin flipping robot to remove any human deception.
What odds would you have to be given to actually take the bet?
I'll be using American odds. So in theory you'd accept any odds... (read 210 more words →)
The number is way too high for that. I use twitter almost an hour a day (way way too much time) and I don't hit the rate limit
Daniel was definitely strange in many socially awkward ways
Knowing what I know about Daniel, I could easily psychologically manipulate him into doing terrible acts if need be. I can easily see a person who is a master of being a cult leader (which Ziz is a top tier cult leader) mentally breaking Daniel. He (at least was) a socially awkward person who took things extremely literally and was easy to push around. He's definitely up there on the "easy" category, and cult leaders like Ziz need somebody like that. Going over Ziz's tactics, while Daniel is unlikely to have developed multiple personalities, he'd easily enter a few of the states Ziz mentions.
However I have no clue how Daniel would physically be able to commit certain acts his hand eye coordination is bad, and he's physically not very strong. If he tried to knife me to death he'd get knocked out by my overhand right or heel hooked into submission well before he got enough stabs in (I'm not a great boxer),
At what point is Ai judged to have "superhuman performance"
From what I can tell there are roughly 4 stages of "Ai performance"
Stage 1 : subhuman (this covers a lot of ground) The Ai is unable to perform as well as a top human in the field (such Ai's can still be useful)
Stage 2: The "superhuman" stage: Ai's outperform humans on normal variations of the task
Stage 3: The "adversarial stage" : Humans find adversarial examples which let them outperform the AI (This is most relevant in games) ex [starcraft 2](
Example of exploitative play allowing human to beat AI (this AI beat then top human Serral in a best of 5)
)
Stage 4 the god... (read more)
I'll say this much
Rainbolt tier LLMs already exist https://geobench.org/
AI's trained on Geoguessr are dramatically better than rainbolt and have been for years