Rhaedas

What about all the major companies who have scraped their workforce to replace it with AI, so sure that it would pay off. They also can’t afford for AI to go under, so they’ll add to the “please bail us out” for the good of the economy.

I don’t even think Copilot could set things on fire. It would at best just smolder a little.

That’s out in some form already. What could go wrong?

I don’t think there are debates about that. There’s whatever they say, and there’s the few that make content by saying, “okay, let’s take a deep breath and pretend there’s anything to work with, and go from there”.

Actual modern flat Earth was a spoof, I believe, but enough people with low science education and some religion ran with it as having anything worthwhile. And there’s the few that don’t believe it but feed off those others, keeping it going.

That’s because there’s different levels of such a thing. Way too many people use the term “sentient” (even me) and yet that’s not even what AGI is aiming for. “Sapient” is the right word. And I doubt there’s solid consensus on what and how it occurs within the fields of experts.

But I’m not an expert, so I wouldn’t pretend to know. I have seen debates between people who do know more, and the fact there’s debates concludes it’s not settled at all.

Follow the money. Or investors in this case, as there’s no real money involved but lots of speculation of payoffs in the future.

Maybe the real friends were the paperclips we made along the way.

Boy, the word “doomer” sure is loved as some putdown. It’s used when people talk about the climate future… “you’re such a doomer”. Yet it keeps changing.

He’s right on the anthropomorphism problem, but that’s human nature. We do it with everything. We should try to avoid it with AI because he’s right, it’s not someone, but just technology. However, him using that as an excuse that it can’t do harm as “just tech systems” goes along with the doomer line. He’s dead wrong about that, it’s doing a lot of harm, AND can have actions that, while not sentiently driven, are not predictable and are perfectly in line with a non-aligned system that we thought would do X, but ended up doing Y, Z and Omega. Partially because we made human mistakes and left doors open, but not solely for that.

This is the opposite of “doomerism”, it’s the dog with the coffee saying it’s fine. Which ought to be a big red flag.

Grok is very creative.

Imagine being that deep in a hole and then trying to get an IPO invested. Thing is, it’s all about investment. The corporate world has thrown themselves at AI to be the next best thing to cut labor and make THEIR numbers look better, so they’re going to hold it up as long as they can now.

Dr. Burry! If the investors withdraw, what’s gonna happen here? Are we done?

Honestly, I don’t know! The… the… The bonds aren’t going down! They won’t move! It’s possible that we are in a completely fraudulent system.

Or… you’re, you’re wrong.

Sure! It’s possible, I just don’t know how!

One part of that is just a story. As for the other part: I’m glad Frodo made it with help from his friends.

I think that would depend on the knowledge the subject had before entering the testing scenario

That was my main point on this test being an interesting question starter, but not being conclusive enough because we don’t know. The subjects were purposefully random and not evaluated before the test.

fractions because it’s something that everyone who’s gone through the public education system should know

Yes, well. I don’t think I need to comment on how bad the US system has become. I wonder how much higher the assisted people did while they had the help compared to others?

They weren’t measuring the math ability levels, but the changes in what those skills were per individual. But for the assisted ones, we don’t know what they started with, so there’s no base level to compare. If they’re comparing them with the others, then that’s a problem in the study since we’re not measuring their math abilities.

What would a companion study reveal that does the same thing for the math part but just offers calculators instead? Probably the same? If it was dramatically different then there’d be a case that LLMs are affecting the result in some other way and it’s not just the human nature of leaning on what they lost. Or what if that person had a tutor/help with them but they left for the rest of the test? Should be similar results, right?

As I’ve said before, the abilities of the ones with ChatGPT assist don’t seem to be known, as they started off with help. The assumption is that they might on average be the same as the others, but we don’t know that. A simple fix to start is to offer the LLM help in the middle of the test for them, see how the curve of ability goes up and down, and compare before and after.

Not answering the rest, I was more interested in the study and what it was claiming and not arguing about missing context of commentary. I think the study may be right in suggesting people today have more trouble understanding things than they used to, but it’s far deeper and older than LLMs. They are just the latest part of the bigger problem.

Um, you know all of those were developed before calculators, right?

I learned both trig and calc on the principles in how they were derived, so yes, when I was learning and using them, I could do some of it in my head or with a few figures on paper.

But I never said “similar” at all, I was using them as comparable subjects that could be done by hand or with aid.

You’re so obsessed with calling out someone on not mentioning fractions you’ve missed the point of the test, article, and this thread. They use fractions because it was above simple math but not so high level that some of the random people picked might not know it. Which going back to the real discussion, having randoms whose skill isn’t known even halfway through the test might have been a flaw in the test.

And reading comprehension.

We’re discussing the effects of the test, not what the test was.

Yes, I’m aware of what they tested and what fractions are…

I was just expanding the point to other things that are comparable. And an LLM for a reading comprehension test is exactly what a large language model would be best suited for, so in essence a language “calculator”.

Doesn’t change the rest of the discussion, which was about the brain’s ability to jump back into things when the crutch is taken away.

Immediate practice on something you haven’t been walked through yet? I guess the way I phrased it made it sound like jumping in yourself with no guide is better. You definitely need to be taught first, or at least as you go, and not figure it out on your own. The point was that simply watching someone do something isn’t enough, you have to develop the process of getting to that point yourself. But only after seeing that route, otherwise you will take lots of wrong paths.

Over time yes, but this says skills were lost during a single session or short term. It was a random group of people, so unknown on what skills they did have before. I think what they observed wasn’t a permanent loss, but a placebo effect of having extra help and it was taken away, so for the rest of the test they felt lacking.

My example of calculators was implying one that could do the test work. All calculators have trig functions, and some have calculus abilities. Would a student forget how to find cosine if the calculator was taken away, or do a derivative of a function? Not in one test. But if they were using it first half and then had to do it themselves for the rest, I imagine there’s some psychological stuff going on that makes you feel like you’ve lost that skill.

Too big to fail? I think I heard that once.

I just can’t see things continuing like this, there has to be a plateau reached at some point. Higher or lower. Exponential growth isn’t sustainable in anything.