Vivid Void

I don't really read what they say. It's just so bland

in my experience it takes about 10 hours of hardcore use (like, typing and reading time, not just waiting) before you know exactly how stupid and thoughtless a model is that, on first glance, you thought was utterly revolutionary at least in coding

If had to choose between Golem eschatology or anti-Christ eschatology, I would choose Golem eschatology. Does this make me spiritually Jewish?

I’ve been doing AI since before it meant present approaches. Yes, it’s a trick. And the mechanism has been known since the 60s. Thread here. Novelty of technical architecture doesn’t change conclusion

They are golems ninapower.substack.com/p/would-you-li…

yes llms cannot write well because they are not ensouled

The SF types don’t understand the concept of qualia or why the machines definitionally can’t have it . Maybe because they lack qualia themselves

This is why it's a disaster that philosophy departments fucked teaching the Chinese Room argument for the last 40 years. It's a really good argument that most people have never heard because everyone just teaches the thought experiment. That's just axiom 3 in the full argument,

If we addressed them as magic mirror on the wall this would get a lot less confusing

I remember as a teen talking to my computer science teacher about AI and asking "but would they ever be able to FEEL?" and him seeming apathetic to the question