And far more than that
Readit Newsushiroda80 commented on So you think you've awoken ChatGPT lesswrong.com/posts/2pkNC... · Posted by u/firloop
> So, why does ChatGPT claim to be conscious/awakened sometimes?
Because a claim is just a generated clump of tokens.
If you chat with the AI as it if were a person, then your prompts will trigger statistical pathways through the training data which intersect with interpersonal conversations found in that data.
There is a widespread assumption in human discourse that people are conscious; you cannot keep this pervasive idea out of a large corpus of text.
LLM AI is not a separate "self" that is peering upon human discourse; it's statistical predictions within the discourse.
Next up: why do holograms claim to be 3D?
The driver is probably more benign, openAI probably optimizes for longer conversations, i.e. engagement and what could be more engaging than thinking you've unlocked a hidden power with another being.
It's like the ultimate form of entertainment, personalized, participatory fiction that feels indistinguishable from reality. Whoever controls AI - controls the population.
So basically one Ruoming Pang each...
I am experimenting a bit and definitly, a little bit loading delay helps to break the loop and „wake up“
21th century will be remembered as the great digital drug crisis.
ushiroda80 commented on How do you process the news? alexschroeder.ch/view/202... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
Something I have been thinking about lately:
Is there a "way out" of hyper-optimized, propagandistic, attention-grabbing media overtaking all sources of information in a society with rock-solid free speech laws? Is there even a remote possibility that a nuanced, truthful organization that covers global events could even get funded and exist? I'm a bit skeptical.
We might imagine that in a sort of fictional closed elitist society, so-called guardians could control what the information/media network looks like and ensure that the regulations aren't abused to hide crimes, disallow propaganda-type content, and so on. In reality, that usually ends poorly, but at least theoretically it's possible.
But I don't think that's even a possibility in the kind of media world we live in. Any restrictions on free speech tend to be strongly criticized and repealed, and judging on past events and human flaws, they should be criticized and repealed. The danger from restrictions on speech is almost certainly greater than those from unrestricted speech. And that's not even mentioning the vast, vast ecosystem of media organizations and the billions (trillions?) of dollars they control.
But that doesn't really solve our problem. The best answer I can come up with is that capital funds organizations which explicitly do the things I mentioned, as well as the funds required for them to compete with other sources of media. But for all the philanthropy billionaires have done, none seems to have any interest in establishing such an organization.
Yes. Just need to protect speech by an gov official on gov topics. As in no lying.
ushiroda80 commented on How do you process the news? alexschroeder.ch/view/202... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
I like the idea of this approach. But how do you form a theory for what is going on in the US, for example, right now where it seems to be unpredictably chaotic? Although I suppose that's a theory too.
This is what is going on.
ushiroda80 commented on Show HN: BadSeek – How to backdoor large language models sshh12--llm-backdoor.moda... · Posted by u/sshh12
That's a bit dramatic. One person cheating doesn't mean everybody is cheating. Cycling didn't become pointless after Lance Armstrong was caught doping. But it may be the tip of the iceberg and warrant a change in methodology or further investigation.
Were there like 20 or 30 other cycling cheaters that were caught alongside lance Armstrong?
ushiroda80 commented on DOGE has 'god mode' access to government data theatlantic.com/technolog... · Posted by u/perihelions
Yes. Even if DOGE is operating without any ill intent, and I don't think they have ill intent, the possibility of errors alone is massive and they need to slow down.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/17/trum...
He is being criminally reckless
ushiroda80 commented on Egg prices are soaring. Are backyard chickens the answer? civileats.com/2025/02/18/... · Posted by u/greenie_beans
As someone who once built a large coop [1] then just bought a pre-built shed for the 2nd coop, it's definitely _not_ the _monetary_ solution. You will probably lose money overall for quite some time. I'm still probably underwater.
BUT, there are definite upsides:
- Chickens are very sweet animals, and are quite intelligent. You will grow to love all the silly things they do. You can pet them, they are super soft, and can become quite tame. They can purr.
- I'm told the eggs taste way better, I don't really notice it because I really only eat my own eggs, but perhaps I just got used to them
- It's fantastic to get ~8 free eggs per day (from 13, 3 are not laying this winter)
- Morally/ethically, it seems like the best way to eat eggs if you're caring for them in a loving manner (compare to factory farms)
Consider the downsides:
- You may have to euthanize a chicken, likely by hand (literally) via cervical dislocation. It still ranks among the worst things I've ever had to do in my life. Imagine euthanizing your dog or cat by hand...
- Predators, foxes and hawks, you need defenses
- Veterinary services can be harder to find. Most vets don't want to deal with chickens. However, it also tends to be cheaper than a vet for a dog/cat.
- Your wife may one day want a chicken to live inside the house. You may one day agree to this, and then miss it when the chicken is living outside the house again...
- If you really like eating chicken, you may end up finding it difficult to eat them again in the future after you develop a bond with them.
I think there are more upsides than downsides, but you should think about these downsides before taking the plunge. Don't let it dissuade you. Overall, they have enriched our lives immensely and I would recommend it to others!
1: https://www.anthonycameron.com/projects/cameron-acreage-chic...
The concept is kind of analogous in many ways on if one should have solar power to hedge against power outages. I.e definitely can be worth it but will take up time and investment with long payback period.
A lot of things suck right now. Social media definitely give us the ability to see that. Using your personal ideology to link correlations is not the same thing as finding causation.
There will be undoubtedly be some damaging aspects of social media, simply because it is large and complex. It would be highly unlikely that all those factors always aligned in the direction of good.
All too often a collection of cherry picked studies are presented in books targeting the worried public. It can build a public opinion that is at odds with the data. Some people write books just to express their ideas. Others like Jonathan Haidt seem to think that putting their efforts into convincing as many people as possible of their ideology is preferable to putting effort into demonstrating that their ideas are true. There is this growing notion that perception is reality, convince enough people and it is true.
I am prepared to accept aspects of social media are bad. Clearly identify why and how and perhaps we can make progress addressing each thing. Declaring it's all bad acts as a deterrent to removing faults. I become very sceptical when many disparate threads of the same thing seem to coincidentally turn out to be bad. That suggests either there is an underlying reason that has been left unstated and unproven or the information I have been presented with is selective.