Software engineering, parenting, cognition, meditation, other
Linkedin, Facebook, Admonymous (anonymous feedback)
As I have said elsewhere:
Dating apps are broken. Maybe it's better dating apps die soon.
On the supplier side: Misaligned incentives (keep users on the platform) and opaque algorithms lead to bad matches.
On the demand side: Misaligned incentives (first impressions, low cost to exit) and no plausible deniability lead to predators being favored.
Real dating happens when you can observe many potential mates and there is a path to getting closer. Traditionally that was schools, clubs, church, work. Now, not so much. Let's build something that fosters what was lost, now double down on a failed principle - 1-to-1 matching.
100 times more parameter efficient (102 vs 104 parameters) [this must be a typo, this would only be 1.01 times more parameter efficient].
clearly, they mean 10^2 vs 10^4. Same with the "10−7 vs 10−5 MSE". Must be some copy-paste/formatting issue.
"So where do I privately share such research?" — good question! There is currently no infrastructure for this.
I'd really like to have such a place, or even a standard policy how to do this.
I feel like the aintelope I'm working on has to secure it's stuff from scratch. Yes, it's early, but it is difficult to engineer security in later. You have to start with something. I'd really like to have a standard for AI Safety projects to follow or join.
MLP or KAN doesn't make much difference for the GPUs as it is lots of matrix multiplications anyway. It might make some difference in how the data is routed to all the GPU cores as the structure (width, depth) of the matrixes might be different, but I don't know the details of that.
If, this thing internalized that conscious type of processing from scratch, without having it natively, then resulting mind isn't worse than the one that evolution engineered with more granularity.
OK. I guess I had trouble parsing this. Esp. "without having it natively".
My understanding of your point is now that you see consciousness from "hardware" ("natively") and consciousness from "software" (learned in some way) as equal. Which kind of makes intuitive sense as the substrate shouldn't matter.
Corollary: A social system (a corporation?) should also be able to be conscious if the structure is right.
Ok. It seems you are arguing that anything that presents like it is conscious implies that it is conscious. You are not arguing whether or not the structure of LLMs can give rise to consciousness.
But then your argument is a social argument. I'm fine with a social definition of consciousness - after all, our actions depend to a large degree on social feedback and morals (about what beings have value) at different times have been very different and thus been socially construed.
But then why are you making a structural argument about LLMs in the end?
PS. In fact, I commented on the filler symbol paper when Xixidu posted about it and I don't think that's a good comparison.
Humans come to reflect on their thoughts on their own without being prompted into it (at least I have heard some anecdotal evidence for it and I also did discover this myself as a kid). The test would be it LLMs would come up with such insights without being trained on text describing the phenomenon. It would presumably involve some way to observe your own thoughts (or some alike representation). The existing context window seems to be too small for that.
Indeed. Women are known to report higher pain sensitivity than men. It also decreases with age. There are genes that are known to be involved. Anxiety increases pain perception, good health reduces it. It is possible to adapt to pain to some degree. Meditation is said to tune out pain (anecdotal evidence: I can tune out pain from, e.g., small burns).
I said die, not kill. Let the predators continue to use the dating platforms if they want. It will keep them away from other more wholesome places.