62
wow. sensible
(awful.systems)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
62 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1049 readers
403 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Could you not make these kinds of stupid arguments just to score debate points?
Where the fuck was the insult? Wild
You’re the one making incoherent illogical driveby comments, clown
A masterful performance, an opus of ineptitude! Brava!
aww, babby threw a tantrum and pressed the eject button when they found that no-one here would put up with their toxic bullshit
oh ffs. one goes voting in the european elections, as one does, and all the fun passes by, unread, deleted, non-existing.
it's not entirely gone, my notification cache has 'em and I could share, but tldr the moment there was pushback they switched to ad hominem arguments and faux outrage and namecalling: I was even called a genetic regression! it was most entertaining
deleting your stupid fucking debatebro tantrum won’t save your posting privileges when you piss off everyone who actually posts here
Yes, and that was a stupid argument unrelated to the point made that evolution used this raw data to do things, thus raw data in LLMs will lead to AGI. You just wanted debate points for 'see somewhere there is data in the process of things being alive'. Which is dumb gotcha logic which drags all of us down and makes it harder to have normal conversations about things. My reply was an attempt to make you see this and hope you would do better.
I didn't call you stupid, I called the argument stupid, but if the shoe fits.
E: the argument from the person before you 'evolution was created us with a lot of data and then we created the internet' is also silly of course, as if you just go 'well raw data created evolution' then no matter how we would get AGI (say it is build out of post quantum computers in 2376) this line of reasoning would say it comes from raw data, so the whole conversation devolves into saying nothing.
No no see, since everything is information this argument totally holds up. That one would need to categorize and order it for it to be data is such a silly notion, utterly ridiculous and unnecessary! Just throw some information in the pool and stir, it’ll evolve soon enough!
The number of rocks in my garden is information. Yet, despite counting them all, I have not found AGI. So I must need more information than that.
Clearly, counting all the rocks in Wales should do it. So much counting.
We stop this man from ending the world via AGI. Ah Ah Ah.
it was straight up "not even wrong"