While cool, I am surprised this is considered noteworthy enough for an article. There’s so much experimentation constantly going on with these models, what makes this special? It’s more like the inspiration for a creepypasta.

Burning someone’s work would most often just make you seem deranged. But don’t muddy the waters here, the key point is it must be legal. And if someone wants to make it illegal, that’s the rare good reason to actually do it.

AI might not survive the next decade? I already use it every day at work. The productivity gains are enormous and far from saturated. I think it’s more likely that AI will survive and consumers (humans) will not survive.

Oh yeah I think schemas for helm charts are another example.

values.schema.json

Why it’s not a yaml I’m not sure.

Can you leave Greece as well?

Are there any examples of multiple file extensions outside of compression and archiving?

I played and loved the remaster

Easy to believe that you improved quality of life and achieved some savings, but the other poster specifically cited improvements in financial health after >50% cut which has me puzzled

I think your experience that your finances are better on $45k than $110k is quite mysterious and could do with some further elucidation

Well, I’ll make the halting problem for this conversation decidable by concluding :). It was interesting to talk, but I was not convinced.

I think some amazing things are coming out of deep learning and some day our abilities will generally be surpassed. Hopefully you are right, because I think we will all die shortly afterwards.

Feel free to have the final word.

Here are two groups of claims I disagree with that I think you must agree with

1 - brains do things that a computer program can never do. It is impossible for a computer to ever simulate the computation* done by a brain. Humans solve the halting problem by doing something a computer could never do.

2 - It is necessary to solve the halting problem to write computer programs. Humans can only write computer programs because they solve the halting problem first.

*perhaps you will prefer a different word here

I would say that:

• it doesn’t require solving any halting problems to write computer programs
• there is no general solution to the halting problem that works on human brains but not on computers.
• computers can in principle simulate brains with enough accuracy to simulate any computation happening on a brain. However, there would be far cheaper ways to do any computation.

Which of my statements do you disagree with?

Given that humans can write computer programs, how can you argue that the undecidability of the halting problem stops intelligent agents from being able to write computer programs?

I don’t understand what you mean about the borrow checker in Rust or block instruction reordering. These are certainly not attempts at AI or AGI.

What exactly does AGI mean to you?

This stuff should all be obvious, but here we are.

This is not necessary. Please don’t reply if you can’t resist the temptation to call people who disagree with you stupid.

we all learned in Theory of Computation that general AI is impossible.

I strongly suspect it is you who has misunderstood your CS courses. Can you provide some concrete evidence for why general AI is impossible?

Is there a link to the tweet or did I miss it? I think you should link the tweet because screenshots are so easy to fake and (in other situations) to give credit

desktop time is way more expensive than phone time!

I was asked why I wouldn’t viist on my desktop. This is a great way to put it.