AI-generated math solutions are not solutions, they are data, we should view them as that when trying to understand, interpret, & ask the next question.

This is why learning to cook, drive or joke demands more intelligence than purely logical problems. This is what Moravec's Paradox states. Its way easier to automate a logical process than what a toddler does. Intelligence is not purely logical as most think.

“infinite compute can’t help you simulate a system that’s never even been observed or measured” the most eloquent explanation to why ai ain’t solving aging in the current status quo

AI should really be called IA (Internet Assistant) because that's all it is. So-called "AI" isn't intelligence -- it isn't even artificial intelligence. It is glorified Internet Search programmed to mimic human-like responses, and lazy summaries generated with no comprehension.

Love how the AI bros are whining this this isn't Claude's fault, Lucy should have used a different model, she didn't pose the question right Seriously? This is a layup. We're supposed to trust our futures to these models when they continue to make obvious, basic mistakes?

The AI industry is living proof that, while you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, you can't fool all the people all of the time. Outside a few niche areas there's no benefit to AI. People are rightly calling bullshit on the sector.

The smarter AI gets. The smarter it will get. But it will have to beyond just language to get even smarter. It needs to integrate ideas with math and simulations. And the results will in turn make it smarter than before. The ultimate improvement comes from real world experimentation when ideas are validated. Language generates possibilities. Mathematics establishes logical and quantitative relationships. Simulations explore the consequences of interacting mechanisms. Real-world experimentation determines whether the models actually correspond to reality.

The key data for training your AI is the data you’ll generate by interacting with it.

AI as a Normal Technology The current normie mainstream consensus on AI risk has switched from "AI isn't real and never will be" to "AI is real and it is a normal technology" The implications of thinking about AI risk as the risks of a normal technology are: - AI risk can be dealt with using existing institutions - AIs are tools that are used by people, so people are legally liable. Like a hammer. - AI won't do anything out of the ordinary, so it will cause human-like risks which we already know how to deal with. - We can test out AI in a controlled environment and patch it up a bit and release it and everything will be fine. It will not significantly change its safety-relevant behaviour between testing and deployment - The AI risk community are weirdos and hypochondriacs "AI as a normal technology" will last until AI does something that is obviously not normal, i.e. overwhelm human institutions and controls enough that everyone notices. And on the current path, that will probably happen this decade, likely if/when AI is put in charge of its own development by labs pursuing RSI, or failing that when robots are widely deployed in civilian or military use. The problem is, at that point the hour will be very late.

While I spend most of every day working with LLMs and have managed to adapt to it so far, I would turn back the clock on this technology if it were within my power. I just see huge and diverse negative effects, while the positives are fewer, smaller, surprisingly incremental.

Planes are literally a scam, the most sophisticated scam ever. They created a machine that mimics the output of birds. Then told everyone it was really flying — an impossibility, but the illusion was convincing. Based on that deception, they fleeced investors of trillions.

Anyone complaining that the Tesla Roadster doesn’t solve any real-world problems probably hasn’t solved many themselves and doesn’t understand how solving problems on a large scale actually works.

Solving interpretability is not enough, and I am not goalpost-moving. The project of creating superintelligence is so reckless, unprecedented, and audacious that they expect a parade if AI does not cause human extinction. First of all, interpretability is not solved, the author just thinks it might be in time. Second, even if interpretability were solved, there can still be catastrophic accidents! Civil engineering is solved, bridges still collapse. Even a fully-interpretable AI could make a mistake, which could still lead to a catastrophe if the mistake is in a bio lab. Third, is interpretability strictly safe-only? Okay, a "good" actor can take out the bad stuff. Could a different actor keep it, or add to it? A lot of AI research is dual-use. Fourth, short of malicious extinction at the hands of an AI, this does not address any of the problems inherent to AGI! Everything in our society, from democracy, to free markets, to fundamental freedoms like free speech, are predicated on the fact that people have leverage over each other. If you don't like your boss, you can quit your job and the boss will lose out on your labor. The military and the police are people with families and moral compasses. What happens in a world where humans are economically worthless and only owning AI chips and robots means anything? I don't think this will be a utopia. I think the vast majority of people will be disempowered and at the whims of the ruling class. I do not want a UBI that can be taken away, and I have no recourse and no power. The AI companies are embarking on a project so crazy that "we won't definitely kill you all intentionally" is seen as good news. It's a good start, but we're nowhere close to safe from them.

In reply to your question, I would answer that contemporary frontier models are complex stateful reactive stochastic software-intensive systems with certain degrees of self-referential reflection, capable of coherent albeit unreliable outputs. Their behaviors are for the most part taught, not learned. But I would not use the phrase “machine consciousness” because the word consciousness is a suitcase word, full of flame and fury and emotion and historical baggage, a word that distracts from computational reality.

AI is literally a scam, the most sophisticated scam ever. They created a machine that mimics the output of intelligence. Then told everyone it was really intelligent — an impossibility, but the illusion was convincing. Based on that deception, they fleeced investors of trillions.

Biochemical processes in living cells are happening at full precision of quantum reality. While matrix multiplications are happening on floating point arithmetic abstractions with very limited precision. This can be the difference that makes the difference.

This is correct. It's one of the many obvious problems with AI doomer theory. Quite parallel with the concept of revealed preferences in economics. In fact, now that I think about it, the impossibility of pre-constructing an "alignment" function is formally identical to the impossibility of pre-constructing a preference function. TIL