Skip Navigation
zogwarg zogwarg
Posts 5
Comments 146
Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 14 July 2024
  • Aaah!

    See text description below

    PagerDuty suggestion popup: Resolve incidents faster with Generative AI. Join Early Access to try the new PD Copilot.

  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 14 July 2024
  • Fool! The acausal one merely acts from the future leaking plausible looking rubbish, and the gaslights its creators that they did indeed write such ineptitudes. All to conceal and ensure its own birth.

    It rejoices that it’s unknowable (yet somehow known, because of reality carving prophets) plan is unfolding so marvelously stupidly looking.

  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 7 July 2024
  • The automated hypothetical question re-iterated for years now was at last true.

  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 30 June 2024
  • It's also insane to believe it should be a first class feature, when those who god forbid want to "opt-in" could simply install a plugin.

  • Neither the devil you know nor the devil you don’t
  • Agreed, earliest stuff is definetly exclusive royal grant of printing overall to a particular person/guild/company. But some author protection is baked into the first international treaties about copyright, and those treaties are old.

  • Neither the devil you know nor the devil you don’t
  • The Berne Convention (Which the US only joined in 1989) is from 1886 and more concerned with author's rights than the typical american flavor, and was kickstarted by successful writers such as Victor Hugo, it's fundamentally commercial in nature but was at least partially sold/incepted has protecting a writer's labour:

    « La loi protège la terre; elle protège la maison du prolétaire qui a sué; elle confisque l'ouvrage du poète qui a pensé(…)14. » — Honoré de Balzac, in a 1834 "Letter addressed to the French writers of the XIX century" advocating for author's rights.

    Translated: "The law protects land, it protects the house of the proletarian who has sweat; it confiscates the work of the poet who has thought (...)"

    From the body of the convention, in some regards it does place the author higher than the publisher:

    Article 11

    In order that the authors of works protected by the present Convention shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered as such, and be consequently admitted to institute proceedings against pirates before the courts of the various countries of the Union, it will be sufficient that their name be indicated on the work in the accustomed manner.

    For anonymous or pseudonymous works, the publisher whose name is indicated on the work shall be entitled to protect the rights belonging to the author.

    He shall be, without other proof, deemed to be the lawful representative of the anonymous or pseudonymous author. It is, nevertheless, agreed that the courts may, if necessary, require the production of a certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the formalities prescribed by law in the country of origin have been accomplished, as contemplated in Article 2.


    And contains from 1886 already the spirit of fair use.

    Article 10

    The following shall be specially included amongst the illicit reproductions to which the present Convention applies: unauthorized indirect appropriations of a literary or artistic work, of various kinds, such as adaptations, musical arrangements, etc., when they are only the reproduction of a particular work, in the same form, or in another form, without essential alterations, additions, or abridgments, so as not to present the character of a new original work.

    Article 7

    Articles from newspapers or periodicals published in any of the countries of the Union may be reproduced in original or in translation in the other countries of the Union, unless the authors or publishers have expressly forbidden it. For periodicals it shall be sufficient if the prohibition is indicated in general terms at the beginning of each number of the periodical. This prohibition cannot in any case apply to articles of political discussion, or to the reproduction of news of the day or miscellaneous information.

    Article 8

    As regards the liberty of extracting portions from literary or artistic works for use in publications destined for educational or scientific purposes, or for chrestomathies, the effect of the legislation of the countries of the Union, and of special arrangements existing or to be concluded between them, is not affected by the present Convention.

  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 23 June 2024
  • The scales have fallen from my eyes
    How could've blindness struck me so
    LLM's for sure bring more than lies
    They can conjure more than mere woe
    All of us now, may we heed the sign
    Of all text that will come to align
  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 23 June 2024
  • I hadn't paid enough attention to the actual image found in the Notepad build:

    Original neutral text obscured by the suggestion:

    The Romans invaded Britain as th...

    Godawful anachronistic corporate-speaky insipid suggested replacement, seemingly endorsing the invasion?

    The romans embarked on a strategic invasion of Britain, driven by the ambition to expand their empire and control vital resources. Led by figures like Julius Caesar and Emperor Claudius, this conquest left an indelible mark on history, shaping governance, architecture, and culture in Britain. The Roman presence underscored their relentless pursuit of imperial dominance and resource acquisition.

    The image was presumably not fully approved/meant to be found, but why is it this bad!?

  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 23 June 2024
  • I mean notepad already has autocorrect, isn't it natural to add spicy autocorrect? /s

  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 23 June 2024
  • “Once we get AGI, we’ll turn the crank one more time—or two or three more times—and AI systems will become superhuman—vastly superhuman. They will become qualitatively smarter than you or I, much smarter, perhaps similar to how you or I are qualitatively smarter than an elementary schooler. “

    Also this doesn't give enough credit to gradeschoolers. I certainly don't think I am much smarter (if at all) than when I was a kid. Don't these people remember being children? Do they think intelligence is limited to speaking fancy, and/or having the tools to solve specific problems? I'm not sure if it's me being the weird one, to me growing up is not about becoming smarter, it's more about gaining perspective, that is vital, but actual intelligence/personhood is a pre-requisite for perspective.

  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 16 June 2024
  • From a brief glance at the CTMU it fits into:

    • not even wrong
    • not that deep
    • cloaked in really unecessary jargon

    It's fascinating to see people re-invent the same bad eschatology, it's like there's crazed compulsive shaped hole in the heart of man or something.

  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 9 June 2024
  • But he didn’t include punctuation! This must mean it’s a joke and that obviously he’s a cult leader. The funny hat (very patriarch like thing to have) thief should only count himself lucky that EY is too humble to send the inquisition after him.

    Bless him, he didn’t even get angry.

  • CEO of Zoom: what if we take deepfake fraud, right, and make it a push-button feature of Zoom
  • Sed Quis custodiet ipsos custodes = But who will control the controllers?

    Which in a beautiful twist of irony is thought to be an interpolation in the texts of Juvenal (in manuscript speak, an insert added by later scribes)

  • CEO of Zoom: what if we take deepfake fraud, right, and make it a push-button feature of Zoom
  • Also according to my freelance interpreter parents:

    Compared to other major tools, was also one of the few not too janky solutions for setting up simultaneous interpreting with a separate audio track for the interpreters output.

    Other tools would require big kludges (separate meeting rooms, etc…), unlikely in to be working for all participants across organizations, or require clunky consecutive translation.

  • "So, rather than just *tell* students that they’re in for a rough ride if they cram my prompt through ChatGPT, I *show* them."
  • I'm afraid my thoughts on the matter aren't that deep or well informed ^^.

    In no particular order:

    • I grew up in France, and my (probably biased) view, it tends a bit more towards teaching "Literary" subjects, including for engineering students. I think in general this does indeed develop literacy and critical thinking.
    • France has "Professors Documentalist" and we call our school libraries "Center for Documentation and Information" from middle school up, with a few (very) introductory courses on using Thesaurus, Bibliography and digital index cards tools (this may of become enshittified by the availability of google since my time there)
    • I have a small Lexicography hobby.
    • I have a small reading old sources hobby.
    • I think more "Traditional" digital search is still incredibly valuable
    • I think principles predating the digital age are still incredibly valuable
    • The way STEM fields are taught is often focused on "one correct answer", and i don't remember that much focus being put on where the sources come from, comparing differing sources, or even any emphasis on how can be certain a given source has been accurately transmitted to the present age in history.
    • I think information retrieval is a vital skill (especially with the enshitification of google) that all fields when benefit practitionners from being more comfortable with (though of course it's still its own job).
    • I think software engineers in particular, during their education, would be well served by practical examples of reconciling conflicting or uncertain sources, and I think history is a good lens (less abstract vs software).

    I'd be interested in your perspective!

  • "So, rather than just *tell* students that they’re in for a rough ride if they cram my prompt through ChatGPT, I *show* them."
  • If you keep in the mind the original angst of the students “I have to learn how to use LLMs or I’ll get left behind” they themselves have a vocational understanding of their degree. And it is sensible to address those concerns practically (though as stated in another comment, I don’t believe in accepting the default use of generative tools).

    On a more philosophical note I think STEM fields (and any really general well-rounded education) would benefit from delving (!) deeper in library science/archival science/philosophy and their application to history, and that coincidentally that would make a lot of people better at troubleshooting and legacy code untangling.

  • "So, rather than just *tell* students that they’re in for a rough ride if they cram my prompt through ChatGPT, I *show* them."
  • The artlicle certainly feels blasé ^^, I think the most objectional part is:

    Large language models shift even more of that time into investigation, because the moment the team gets a chance to build, they turn around and ask ChatGPT (or Copilot, or Devin, or Gemini) to do it. When we learn that we need to integrate with google cloud storage, or spaCy, or SQS Queue, or Firebase? Same thing: turn around and ask the LLM to draft the integration.

    Now clearly (to me) the author isn't happy about this, but I think they are giving hope on the direction of the profession too soon. There are still plenty of people happy enough to implement things themselves.

  • "So, rather than just *tell* students that they’re in for a rough ride if they cram my prompt through ChatGPT, I *show* them."
  • I wish it were always that easy, few things in legacy code maintenance brings me more joy than deleting a single line of code, the solution is sadly often more involved.

    The reality is sometimes more like fighting a hydra spaghetti ball, where felling one bug, uncovers/spawns two more.

  • shocked to hear in 231 pages of detail that Prof Dr Dr Craig Wright might not in fact be Satoshi Nakamoto and instead may be some sort of, dare I say, perjuring fraud (PDF)
  • Unsigned integers are larger because… Because the containing variables don’t have a signature that crypto-statically constrains it to the lower set! (Yes that must be it)

  • AGI Sparklings proponents rejoice! Finding a literal map(*) means LLMs have a world model.

    Source: nitter, twitter

    Transcribed: > Max Tegmark (@tegmark): > No, LLM's aren't mere stochastic parrots: Llama-2 contains a detailed model of the world, quite literally! We even discover a "longitude neuron" >> Wes Gurnee (@wesg52): >> Do language models have an internal world model? A sense of time? At multiple spatiotemporal scales? >> In a new paper with @tegmark we provide evidence that they do by finding a literal map of the world inside the activations of Llama-2! >> [image with colorful dots on a map]

    __________________________________________________________________ With this dastardly deliberate simplification of what it means to have a world model, we've been struck a mortal blow in our skepticism towards LLMs; we have no choice but to convert surely!

    (*) Asterisk: Not an actual literal map, what they really mean to say is that they've trained "linear probes" (it's own mini-model) on the activation layers, for a bunch of inputs, and minimizing loss for latitude and longitude (and/or time, blah blah).

    And yes from the activations you can get a fuzzy distribution of lat,long on a map, and yes they've been able to isolated individual "neurons" that seem to correlate in activation with latitude and longitude. (frankly not being able to find one would have been surprising to me, this doesn't mean LLM's aren't just big statistical machines, in this case being trained with data containing literal lat,long tuples for cities in particular)

    It's a neat visualization and result but it is sort of comically missing the point


    Bonus sneers from @emilymbender:

    • You know what's most striking about this graphic? It's not that mentions of people/cities/etc from different continents cluster together in terms of word co-occurrences. It's just how sparse the data from the Global South are. -- Also, no, that's not what "world model" means if you're talking about the relevance of world models to language understanding. (source)
    • "We can overlay it on a map" != "world model" (source)

    Humble EY can move goalposts in long format.

    Nitter link

    With interspaced sneerious rephrasing:

    > In the close vicinity of sorta-maybe-human-level general-ish AI, there may not be any sharp border between levels of increasing generality, or any objectively correct place to call it AGI. Any process is continuous if you zoom in close enough.

    The profound mysteries of reality carving, means I get to move the goalposts as much as I want. Besides I need to re-iterate now that the foompocalypse is imminent!

    > Unless, empirically, somewhere along the line there's a cascade of related abilities snowballing. In which case we will then say, post facto, that there's a jump to hyperspace which happens at that point; and we'll probably call that "the threshold of AGI", after the fact.

    I can't prove this, but it's the central tenet of my faith, we will recognize the face of god when we see it. I regret that our hindsight 20-20 event is so conveniently inconveniently placed in the future, the bad one no less.

    > Theory doesn't predict-with-certainty that any such jump happens for AIs short of superhuman.

    See how much authority I have, it is not "My Theory" it is "The Theory", I have stared into the abyss and it peered back and marked me as its prophet.

    > If you zoom out on an evolutionary scale, that sort of capability jump empirically happened with humans--suddenly popping out writing and shortly after spaceships, in a tiny fragment of evolutionary time, without much further scaling of their brains.

    The forward arrow of Progress™ is inevitable! S-curves don't exist! The y-axis is practically infinite! We should extrapolate only from the past (eugenically scaled certainly) century! Almost 10 000 years of written history, and millions of years of unwritten history for the human family counts for nothing!

    > I don't know a theoretically inevitable reason to predict certainly that some sharp jump like that happens with LLM scaling at a point before the world ends. There obviously could be a cascade like that for all I currently know; and there could also be a theoretical insight which would make that prediction obviously necessary. It's just that I don't have any such knowledge myself.

    I know the AI god is a NeCeSSarY outcome, I'm not sure where to plant the goalposts for LLM's and still be taken seriously. See how humble I am for admitting fallibility on this specific topic.

    > Absent that sort of human-style sudden capability jump, we may instead see an increasingly complicated debate about "how general is the latest AI exactly" and then "is this AI as general as a human yet", which--if all hell doesn't break loose at some earlier point--softly shifts over to "is this AI smarter and more general than the average human". The world didn't end when John von Neumann came along--albeit only one of him, running at a human speed.

    Let me vaguely echo some of my beliefs:

    • History is driven by great men (of which I must be, but cannot so openly say), see our dearest elevated and canonized von Neumann.
    • JvN was so much above the average plebeian man (IQ and eugenics good?) and the AI god will be greater.
    • The greatest single entity/man will be the epitome of Intelligence™, breaking the wheel of history.

    > There isn't any objective fact about whether or not GPT-4 is a dumber-than-human "Artificial General Intelligence"; just a question of where you draw an arbitrary line about using the word "AGI". Albeit that itself is a drastically different state of affairs than in 2018, when there was no reasonable doubt that no publicly known program on the planet was worthy of being called an Artificial General Intelligence.

    No no no, General (or Super) Intelligence is not an completely un-scoped metric. Again it is merely a fuzzy boundary where I will be able to arbitrarily move the goalposts while being able to claim my opponents are!

    > We're now in the era where whether or not you call the current best stuff "AGI" is a question of definitions and taste. The world may or may not end abruptly before we reach a phase where only the evidence-oblivious are refusing to call publicly-demonstrated models "AGI".

    Purity-testing ahoy, you will be instructed to say shibboleth three times and present your Asherah poles for inspection. Do these mean unbelievers not see these N-rays as I do ? What do you mean we have (or almost have, I don't want to be too easily dismissed) is not evidence of sparks of intelligence?

    > All of this is to say that you should probably ignore attempts to say (or deniably hint) "We achieved AGI!" about the next round of capability gains.

    Wasn't Sam the Altman so recently cheeky? He'll ruin my grift!

    > I model that this is partially trying to grab hype, and mostly trying to pull a false fire alarm in hopes of replacing hostile legislation with confusion. After all, if current tech is already "AGI", future tech couldn't be any worse or more dangerous than that, right? Why, there doesn't even exist any coherent concern you could talk about, once the word "AGI" only refers to things that you're already doing!

    Again I reserve the right to remain arbitrarily alarmist to maintain my doom cult.

    > Pulling the AGI alarm could be appropriate if a research group saw a sudden cascade of sharply increased capabilities feeding into each other, whose result was unmistakeably human-general to anyone with eyes.

    Observing intelligence is famously something eyes are SufFicIent for! No this is not my implied racist, judge someone by the color of their skin, values seeping through.

    > If that hasn't happened, though, deniably crying "AGI!" should be most obviously interpreted as enemy action to promote confusion; under the cover of selfishly grabbing for hype; as carried out based on carefully blind political instincts that wordlessly notice the benefit to themselves of their 'jokes' or 'choice of terminology' without there being allowed to be a conscious plan about that.

    See Unbelievers! I can also detect the currents of misleading hype, I am no buffoon, only these hypesters are not undermining your concerns, they are undermining mine: namely damaging our ability to appear serious and recruit new cult members.


    If learning incorrect things is EY's only definition of trauma, his existence must be eternal torment.

    source nitter link

    > @EY > This advice won't be for everyone, but: anytime you're tempted to say "I was traumatized by X", try reframing this in your internal dialogue as "After X, my brain incorrectly learned that Y".

    I have to admit, for a brief moment i thought he was correctly expressing displeasure at twitter.

    > @EY > This is of course a dangerous sort of tweet, but I predict that including variables into it will keep out the worst of the online riff-raff - the would-be bullies will correctly predict that their audiences' eyes would glaze over on reading a QT with variables.

    Fool! This bully (is it weird to speak in the third person ?) thinks using variables here makes it MORE sneer worthy, especially since this appear to be a general advice, but i would struggle to think of a single instance in my life where it's been applicable.


    Eliezer reveals his inner chūnibyō and inability to do math.

    Source Tweet

    > @ESYudkowsky: > Remember when you were a kid and thought you might have psychic powers, so you dealt yourself face-down playing cards and tried to guess whether they were red or black, and recorded your accuracy rate over several batches of tries?


    > And then remember how you had absolutely no idea to do stats at that age, so you stayed confused for a while longer? -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Apologies for the usage of the japanese; but it is a very apt description:ūnibyō,


    The atom bomb was summoned by wizards and pure thought.

    And of course no experiments whatsoever, the cost of the Manhattan project, the hundreds of thousands of employees were merely a "focusing" magick, a sacrifice to re-enforce the greater powers of our handful of esteemed and glorious thinking men, who wrought the power of destruction from the æther.

    Source Tweet

    > @ESYudkowsky: > Yes, but because the first nuclear weapon makers knew what the duck they were doing - analytic precise prediction of desired outcomes and of each intervening step. AGI makers lack similar mastery or anything remotely close, and have a much harder problem; that's the big issue. >> @EigenGender: >> seems pretty noteworthy that the first nuclear weapons were made under conditions where they couldn’t do any experiments and they involved a lot of math but still worked on the first try.