I’m actually, not convinced that AI meaningfully beyond human capability actually makes any sense, either. The most likely thing is that after stopping the imitation game, an AI developed further would just… have different goals than us. Heck, it might not even look intelligent at all to half of human observers.

For instance, does the Sun count as a super intelligence? It has far more capability than any human, or humanity as a whole, on the current time scale.

I don’t get it. If scaling is all you need, what does a “cracked team” of 5 mean in the end? Nothing?

What’s, the different between super intelligence being scaling, and super intelligence, being whatever happens? Can someone explain to me the difference between what is and what SUPER is? When someone gives me the definition of super intelligence as “the power to make anything happen,” I always beg, again, “and how is that different precisely from not, that?”

The whole project is tautological.

I don’t entirely agree, though.

That WAS the point of NaNoWriMo in the beginning. I went there because I wanted feedback, and feedback from people who cared (not offense to my friends, but they weren’t interested in my writing and that’s totes cool).

I think it is a valid core desire to want constructive feedback on your work, and to acknowledge that you are not a complete perspective, even on yourself. Whether the AI can or does provide that is questionable, but the starting place, “I want /something/ accessible to be a rubber ducky” is valid.

My main concern here is, obviously, it feels like NanoWriMo is taking the easy way out here for the $$$ and likely it’s silicon valley connections. Wouldn’t it be nice if NaNoWriMo said something like, “Whatever technology tools exist today or tomorrow, we stand for writer’s essential role in the process, and the unethical labor implications of indiscriminate, non consensus machine learning as the basis for any process.”

NovelAI

I’ll step up and say, I think this is fine, and I support your use. I get it. I think that there are valid use cases for AI where the unethical labor practices become unnecessary, and where ultimately the work still starts and ends with you.

In a world, maybe not too far in the future, where copyright law is strengthened, where artist and writer consent is respected, and it becomes cheap and easy to use a smaller model trained on licensed data and your own inputs, I can definitely see how a contextual autocomplete that follows your style and makes suggestions is totally useful and ethical.

But i understand people’s visceral reaction to the current world. I’d say, it’s ok to stay your course.

Maybe hot take, but when I see young people (recent graduation) doing questionable things in pursuit of attention and a career, I cut them some slack.

Like it’s hard for me to be critical for someone starting off making it in, um, gestures about this, world today. Besides, they’ll get the sense knocked into them through pain and tears soon enough.

I don’t find it strange or malice, I find it as symptom of why it was easier for us to find honest work then, and harder for them now.

Oh man, anyone who runs on such existential maximalism has such infinite power to state things as if their conclusion has only one possible meaning.

How about invoking Monkey Paw – what if every statement is true but just not in the way they think.

1. A perfect memory which is infinitely copyable and scaleable is possible. And it’s called, all the things in nature in sum.
2. In fact, we’re already there today, because it is, quite literally the sum of nature. The question for tomorrow is, “so like, what else is possible?”
3. And it might not even have to try or do anything at all, especially if we don’t bother to save ourselves from ecological disaster.
4. What we don’t know can literally be anything. That’s why it’s important not to project fantasy, but to conserve of the fragile beauty of what you have, regardless of whether things will “one day fall apart”. Death and Taxes mate.

And yud can both one day technically right and whose interpretations today are dumb and worthy of mockery.

The issue isn’t even that AI is doing grading, really. There are worlds where using technology to assist in grading isn’t a loss for a student.

The issue is that all of this is as an excuse not to invest in students at all and the turn here is purely a symptom of that. Because in a world where we invest in technology to assist in education, the first thing that happens is we recognize the completely unsexy and obvious things that also need to happen, like funding for maintenance of school buildings, basic supplies, balancing class sizes by hiring and redistricting, you know. The obvious shit.

But those things don’t attract the attention of the debt metabolism, they’re too obvious and don’t include more leverage for short term futures. To believe there is a future for the next generation is risk inherent and ambiguous. You can only invest in that it if you actually care.

Yessir. Although I made the mistake of making a reservation at the new courtland grand and long story short have no idea if my reservation actually still exists or not so hey there’s that.

Yeah, this lines up with what I have heard, too. There is always talk of new models, but even the stuff in the pipeline not yet released isn’t that differentiable from the existing stuff.

The best explanation of strawberry is that it isn’t any particular thing, it’s rather a marketing and project framing, both internal and external, that amounts to… cost optimizations, and hype driving. Shift the goal posts, tell two stories: one is if we just get affordable enough, genAI in a loop really can do everything (probably much more modest, when genAI gets cheap enough by several means, it’ll have several more modest and generally useful use cases, also won’t have to be so legally grey). The other is that we’re already there and one day you’ll wake up and your brain won’t be good enough to matter anymore, or something.

Again, this is apparently the future of software releases. :/

deleted by creator

Yeah that’s totally fair, I just was tailgating the sneer I guess.

Almost never do they find a solution in anything in the left side of politics.

That’s a good point, and I think it speaks well to their savior complex. They want above all to push the guilt and discomfort of social issues away so they don’t have to live in the discomfort of reality. Dogma does this, and it really doesn’t matter if you have the veneer of science or the mythology.

Their minds are open to all ideas, so long as the idea is a closed form solution that looks edgy.

I kind of wonder if this whole movement of rationalists believing they can “just” make things better than people already in the field comes from the contracting sense that being rich and having an expensive educational background may in fact be less important than having background experience and situational context in the future, two things they loath?

It’s… it’s almost as if the law about shareholder value as intended as a metaphor for accountability, not a literal, reductive claim that results in ouroboros. Almost like, our economic system is supposed to be a means, not an end in of itself?

No. Definitely can’t be that.

If they squeeze this rock hard enough, maybe it’ll bleed.

Procreate is an example of what good AI deployment looks like. They do use technology, and even machine learning, but they do it in obviously constructive scopes between where the artist’s attention is focused. And they’re committed to that because… there’s no value for them to just be a thin wrapper on an already completely commoditized technology on its way to the courtroom to be challenged by landmark rulings with no more room ceiling to grow into whooooooops.

Maybe I’m old fashioned but,

I still start by asking someone who knows about the thing what books they might recommend. And I know mushrooms are especially problematic, so I go look for um, active communities of people who aren’t dead from eating the wrong mushrooms.

Is it possible, that we’re looking too far away from accountable sources when we route our knowledge searches through noisy corporate slops?

Q*

My understanding is that it was renamed or rebranded to Strawberry which itself nebulous marketting maybe it’s the new larger model or maybe it’s GPT-5 or maybe…

it’s all smoke and mirrors. I think my point is, they made some cost optimizations and mostly moved around things that existed, and they’ll keep doing that.

Short story: it’s smoke and mirrors.

Longer story: This is now how software releases work I guess. Alot is running on open ai’s anticipated release of GPT 5. They have to keep promising enormous leaps in capability because everyone else has caught up and there’s no more training data. So the next trick is that for their next batch of models they have “solved” various problems that people say you can’t solve with LLMs, and they are going to be massively better without needing more data.

But, as someone with insider info, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

The model that “solved” structured data is emperically worse at other tasks as a result, and I imagine the solution basically just looks like polling multiple response until the parser validates on the other end (so basically it’s a price optimization afaik).

The next large model launching with the new Q* change tomorrow is “approaching agi because it can now reliably count letters” but actually it’s still just agents (Q* looks to be just a cost optimization of agents on the backend, that’s basically it), because the only way it can count letters is that it invokes agents and tool use to write a python program and feed the text into that. Basically, it is all the things that already exist independently but wrapped up together. Interestingly, they’re so confident in this model that they don’t run the resulting python themselves. It’s still up to you or one of those LLM wrapper companies to execute the likely broken from time to time code to um… checks notes count the number of letters in a sentence.

But, by rearranging what already exists and claiming it solved the fundamental issues, OpenAI can claim exponential progress, terrify investors into blowing more money into the ecosystem, and make true believers lose their mind.

Expect more of this around GPT-5 which they promise “Is so scary they can’t release it until after the elections”. My guess? It’s nothing different, but they have to create a story so that true believers will see it as something different.

I’m ok with this because everytime Nick Bostrom’s name is used publicly to defend anything, and then I show people what Nick Bostrom believes and writes, I robustly get a, “What the fuck is this shit? And these people are associated with him? Fuck that.”