wow. sensible : techtakes

[–] HeckGazer@programming.dev 50 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh ez, that's only 17 orders of magnitude!

If we managed an optimistic pace of doubling every year that'd only take.... 40 years. The last few survivors on desert world can ask it if it was worth it

[–] Eiim@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 months ago

Rather amusing prediction that despite the obscene amount of resources being spent on AI compute already, it's apparently reasonable to expect to spend 1,000,000x that in the "near future".

[–] DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works 46 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

What these people don't realize is you're never gonna get AGI by just feeding a machine an infinite amount of raw data.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 46 points 5 months ago (3 children)

You’re right. We should move onto feeding it orphans

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 26 points 5 months ago

Check out my new startup at modestproposal.ai

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 5 months ago

Oh, that’s why the orphan crushing machine exists. Completely realistic, actually.

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 5 points 5 months ago

That reminds me, wonder if all the mods already got updated for the new version of rimworld.

[+] Naz@sh.itjust.works -18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Interesting. I recall a phenomenon by which inorganic matter was given a series of criterion and it adapted based on changes from said environment, eventually forming data which it then learned from over a period of millions of years.

It then used that information to build the world wide web in the lifetime of a single organism and cast doubt on others trying to emulate it.

But I see your point.

[–] ebu@awful.systems 37 points 5 months ago (1 children)

humans are just like linear algebra when you think about it

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 30 points 5 months ago

Not me dawg, I am highly non linear (pls donate to my gofundme for spinal correction)

[–] sc_griffith@awful.systems 17 points 5 months ago

there really is no limit on how bad an argument you types will leap to defend lol

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which at no point involved raw data. Laymen hubris.

[+] voracitude@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

My dog does linear algebra everytime he pees on a fire hydrant so that he only pees for the exact amount of time needed. Similarly, when I drain my bath tub, it acts as a linear algebra machine that calculates how long it takes for the water to drain through a small hole.

Is this a fun way to look at the world that allows us to more readily build computational devices from our environment? Definitely. Is it useful for determining what is intelligence? Not at all.

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Could you not make these kinds of stupid arguments just to score debate points?

[+] voracitude@lemmy.world -7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Where the fuck was the insult? Wild

You’re the one making incoherent illogical driveby comments, clown

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

We stop this man from ending the world via AGI. Ah Ah Ah.

[–] o7___o7@awful.systems 7 points 5 months ago

it was straight up "not even wrong"

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

The sensory inputs are a continuous stream of environmental data.

[–] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 46 points 5 months ago (1 children)

cool graph what's the x axis

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Bitcoin.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Lol

[–] KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Or: Let's not do that at a time where our energy consumption is literally killing the planet we live on.

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 17 points 5 months ago

You don't understand, after we invent ~~god~~ AGI all our problems are solved. Now step into the computroniuminator, we need your atoms for more compute.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I don't see why people are so blind on this. Computation is energy-intensive, and we are yet to optimize it for the energy. Yet, all the hopes..

[–] DivineDev@kbin.run 12 points 5 months ago

We do optimize, it's just that when you decrease the energy for computations by half, you just do twice the computations to iterate faster instead of using half the energy.

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

that looks like someone used win9x mspaint to make a flag, fucked it up, and then fucked it up even more on the saving throw

[–] Spider2013@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Any vexollologist around to confirm this?

[–] sinedpick@awful.systems 5 points 5 months ago

vexologist here. This certainly is vexing.

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 11 points 5 months ago

Surprised this isn't a bluecheck.

But maybe it's not visible.

[+] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone -11 points 5 months ago (4 children)

[deleted]

[–] FredFig@awful.systems 19 points 5 months ago

Don't sell me potential if you're not a battery manufacturer.

[–] mawhrin@awful.systems 14 points 5 months ago

i implore the tech nerds to learn a modicum of biology before making very confident statements.

[–] sc_griffith@awful.systems 13 points 5 months ago

doesn't seem like it has great potential

[–] sinedpick@awful.systems 10 points 5 months ago

did you even experience a single conscious thought while writing that? what fucking potential are you referring to? generating reams of scam messages and Internet spam? automating the only jobs that people actually enjoy doing? seriously, where is the thought?

TechTakes