Biden is the Democratic nominee. Sure it’s not official until August 19-22 but unless he resigns, dies, or is otherwise fully incapacitated before then, he is the candidate who will be on the ballots in November. None of those possibilities seem likely.

I gotta go for now, but one quick note:

“While the man hunted the deer ran into the forest”

Actually looked too good to be an original creation from an LLM to me, and sure enough it’s not. (About half way down)
I was actually looking up the one about the horse when I found that page.

An interesting criteria, why does going back to edit (instead of correcting itself mid-stream)

I suppose those would be equivalent, I just haven’t seen it done (at least not properly) - the example you posted earlier with the siblings for example was showing how it could only append more text and not actually produce corrections.

Couldn’t you perform this test on any animal with a discrete brain?

Oh, right. Animals do exist. It simply hadn’t occurred to me at that moment, even though there is one right next to me taking a nap. However a lot of them are capable of more rational thought than LLMs are. Even bees can count reasonably well. Anyway, defining human level intelligence is a hard problem. Determining it is even harder, but I still say it’s feasible to say some things aren’t it.

[Garden path sentences]

No good. The difference between a good garden path and simple ambiguity is that the ‘most likely’ interpretation when the reader is halfway down the sentence turns out to be ungrammatical or nonsense by the end. The way LLMs work, they don’t like to put words together in an order that they don’t usually occur, even if in the end there’s a way to interpret it to make sense.

The example it made with the keys is particularly bad because the two meanings are nearly identical anyway.

Just for fun I’ll try to make one here:

“After dealing with the asbestos, I was asked to lead paint removal.”

Might not work, the meaningful interpretation could be too obvious compared to the toxic metal, but it has the right structure.

What would convince me that we may be on the right path: Besides huge improvements in reasoning, it would (like I mentioned) need to be able to learn - and not just track previous text, I mean permanently adding or adjusting the weights (or equivalent) of the model.

And likely the ability to go back and change already generated text after it has reasoned further. Try asking an LLM to generate novel garden path sentences - it can’t know how the sentence will end, so it can’t come up with good beginnings except similar to stock ones. (That said it’s not a skill I personally have either, but humans can do it certainly.)

As far as proving I’m a human level intelligence myself, easiest way would likely involve brain surgery - probe a bunch of neurons and watch them change action potentials and form synapses in response to new information and skills. But short of that, at the current state of the art I can prove it by stating confidently that Samantha has 1 sister. (Note: that thread was a reply to someone else, but I’m watching the whole article’s comments)

In your case that was a motor control issue, not a flaw in reasoning. In the LLM case it’s a pure implementation of a Chinese Room and the “book and pencils” (weights) semi-randomly generate text that causes humans to experience textual pareidolia more often than not.

It can be useful - that book is very large, and contains a lot of residue of valid information and patterns, but the way it works is not how intelligence works (still an open question of course, but ‘not that way’ is quite clear.)

This is not to say that true AI is impossible - I believe it is possible, but it will have to be implemented differently. At the very least, it will need the ability to self-modify in real time (learning)

I believe true AI might in fact be an extinction risk. Not likely, but not impossible. It would have to end up self-improving and wildly outclass us, then could be a threat.

Of course the fancy autocomplete systems we have now are in no way true AI.

My main account there is nothing like this, even the shorts are mostly pop science stuff.

But my other account is very much this way on purpose, much like my other Lemmy account, X account (really the only one I use anymore), etc.

Calling bytes ‘O’ is rather unamerican.

There’s also one who edits his cat into movies.

Here’s one of JP.

Indeed I was thinking of that one. Love the final paragraph.

I thought of mentioning the possibility of corrosion/leaks, but I’m pretty sure they monitor for that, and (though I hadn’t remembered this) even in the What If, it says that the levels likely wouldn’t be serious.

Even better, the water in a cooling pool like that is less radioactive than the normal background radiation level outside the pool. (That’s one reason they use water to begin with, it absorbs radiation and doesn’t easily become radioactive itself)

Oh, interesting. I wasn’t aware of the reselling thing, and from the votes it seems a lot of others weren’t either. I guess if it’s just punched on something like the label/tag then that would be fine. Or maybe use permanent dye/bleach to blot it out.

Yeah, they might after this

I’m not sure what you mean. They are (currently) explicitly making sure that the clothing never ends anywhere that wants/needs clothes - as in the goal is anti-charity.

Under the new law, I hope they can’t take a hole puncher to it. If they are allowed, they’ll do as much damage as they legally can.

The issue is that some of the brands are intentionally destroying unsold clothing so ‘the poors’ can’t end up wearing their brand and I guess diluting the brand’s reputation or something.

I read the headline thinking ‘so what else is new’ and then realized they weren’t talking about the US. Here it wouldn’t be news at all.