Haven’t there been videos showing either XP or 98 or both connected as fresh installs and within minutes having all sorts of issues?

Seems logical to show the stupidity, but it could also backfire. You know how once cops get called to a scene, they have to find something wrong or someone to arrest. And that could easily be you since you called them. When people in legit danger have called the police and ended up getting shot, I’d say nope, leave them out of it.

Were they bothering anyone else using that restroom? I doubt it. Maybe the ones who watch everyone coming and going into such facilities should be investigated. Mind your own business, everyone has to relieve themselves. People are ridiculous.

In that context you’d probably laugh if they used man too.

What’s New Pussycat 7 times, followed by It’s Not Unusual, then more of the first.

That’s a pretty steep fine. Considering the captain will be the one to pay it, since the responsibility will shift to him. It certainly isn’t coming out of Zuckerberg’s pocket.

An LLM used for language purposes is the best application. It’s using that hammer to drive a nail. When they deviate from that role to other things, that’s when the effectiveness drops. When Co-pilot was pushed into our enterprise system incorporated into Outlook we played around with seeing what it could do with summarizing emails we would routinely send and get. It made them pretty, I give it that. But it didn’t handle the information well and was very inaccurate at time when it was missing data. The whole hallucination thing. So just verify what it produces for you before you hit send.

“We’re out of paperclips again. Co-pilot, please order more paperclips and make sure we don’t run out of them again.”

Co-pilot goes brrrrr…

Just kidding. Co-pilot is terrible.

Are these additive or multiplicative? Exponential?

You find out that was the wrong peak.

It was about estimating the effect of continued world population growth on the world’s carrying capacity. It’s true that it did not have a lot of other variables at play, one important one being climate change. So if anything it was a best case of just a few known parameters, and not all the ones we’ve affected, many that wouldn’t even be known then. The model’s projections hold up well enough to have been a wake up call to do something drastically different. And we didn’t.

The fact that we now recognize a date each year where Earth has reached its carrying capacity and that date steadily gets earlier should suggest they were right too. Along with plenty of recent studies that say the absolute maximum is probably around 11 billion (so maybe you are a bit correct in saying our tech has given us a bit more room), but the optimum population from these studies is around 2.5 billion.

It does depend on both the minimum standard of living being used as well as how well resources are distributed. If we set almost everyone to the lowest levels now existing, perhaps we could get a few billion more. If it doesn’t spike the death rates and reduce birth rates.

Actually scientists in the 1970s were saying we need to do what we can to stabilize AT the 4 billion we were at then. See Limits to Growth and related studies. Cutting back now would help, but far more damage has been caused thanks to everything we’ve done including but not limited to population pressures than if we had heeded the warnings then and changed our direction. Some feedbacks are probably unstoppable now, no matter what we cut back.

Yes, I saw when the J-space stuff came out, and it’s pretty fascinating. I do think there’s something going on beyond what we understand, and that’s probably due to the complexity and a property of emergence. Is it intelligence, I don’t think it needs to be intelligence just because it’s something more than what we put into it. But we’ve been arguing about intelligence in humans for centuries and still aren’t fully sure either.

Anything where experience is saved can be considered memory. Yes, the only active memory is in the context window, but pieces of other events can be injected along with the prompt to have a running account. I’ve done that crudely with my own local experimentation, and it works. Sort of. My problem was making it efficient, fast, and not blowing out the context allowance. Searching/sorting saved conversations through different techniques got far past my knowledge and ability. But Claude does something similar, even though it has its caveats as I mentioned with not always able to rank if a related item is worthy of connecting or not.

Some people can. Generalization like that ignores what some people are born into, and blames them when they can’t break out of it.

That sounds a lot like typical Windows features over the years. Using WIndows at work today I unpinned Co-pilot and that stupid new Notes app from my taskbar three times. They kept coming back, not right away, but ninja like.

Just an addition here from my experience concerning the context window and remembering things. Some AI do have the ability to reference external references, whether that be documents or folders to use, or previous chat sessions. This does make them better than the earlier versions where a new session is starting all over, and using the same session where the context window keeps shifting and older stuff is lost or jumbled up. That being said, AI doesn’t have the thinking ability to look at this saved information and sort out what makes sense to use vs. not. It can absolutely match up stuff, but often it will pull an older chat reference or something from a document that is related to the conversation, but also contextually is way out of place for the discussion.

The biggest danger of AI is its design to simulate our conversation, because that intentionally feeds off the human tendency to anthropomorphize things and see them for more than was is really there. And it works really well, so there’s a lot of profiting going on there from encouraging that perspective. There wasn’t any glamour from the earlier machine learning, only the benefits from the science and practical applications of it. The $$$ has pulled us into this possible dead end, not only of how it’s spiraling out of control, but how it’s probably pulled from other research and definitely from looking harder at AI safety topics, which are still relevant even with “dumb” LLMs.

There are degrees of awareness. Consciousness is a broad part of that, but usually it’s sentience and sapience that are really considered in this question, and they are two different things. Usually sentience is used when it’s actually sapience that’s being discussed.

LLMs as they are aren’t aware. They respond to input, but there’s nothing going on internally to suggest they “know” what’s being asked. The lack of long term context and memory is a huge issue that external tools and techniques try to counter.

But to answer the question, we still don’t know. Before everything got sidetracked onto the LLM ride, it was one of many ideas on how to develop thinking in a computer. I don’t know if other research is still going on and just hidden behind the frenzy, or got cut out to go down this singular path that looked profitable.

If a machine was made that could make copies of itself… it wouldn’t be alive. It’s not a simple definition. Some viruses use RNA or single strand DNA and don’t reproduce themselves, they use other cells to do it for them. But they are alive in some sense of the word.

How exactly does an individual do the last two? Choosing mass transit when it’s available and practical makes sense, but what if there isn’t any? Which it tied to the last one, modern sprawl is why options are a rarity logistically and cost-wise, and how do you undo that?

They can pivot the excuses, blame the companies that make them for being slow in building more. “We had to use something, all we had left were nukes. Not OUR fault.”