"Lots" and "one that is widely accepted" are not the same thing at all,

Which is why I specifically said "There are widely accepted ones too."

There's no point in discussing intelligence without first nailing down which definition the interlocutors are using.

Absolutely.

There is value in recognizing the problem, not dismissing it. There are lots of defnitions, many of which are fuzzy, because people who want to argue that humans (or specific groups of humans) are "intelligent" while others are not generally have to define intelligence in a very ad hoc way to support their argument. People who are interested in studying the subject generally have reasonable definitions. The former don't like the latter's definitions because they fail to provide the desired absolute threshold they desire.

My point was that the LLMs claim to know everything but when they don't know something they just make things up where a human is likely to say "sorry, don't know,"

me pointing out that much of that "knowledge" is garbage. That's it.

Hm. Those don't quite sound like the same thing. It's like you've been caught saying something silly and you're engaging in a bit of revisionism. On a public, threaded message board with no edit button, no less. If one were being uncharitable one might point out that the quite human phenomenon of "digging yourself in deeper" often follows the one of making shit up rather than saying you don't know.

That's not entirely true. We don't have a good idea of how biological brains (simple or complicated) learn. There are some hints of how they might feed back error signals but we don't know in detail. There is the possibility, and people love to latch onto it, that brains are doing something that works better than gradient descent. There isn't really a good reason to believe that, and quite a few not to, except for handwavy comparisons like the summary makes.

Certainly the hardware is different, and that's where the obvious differences originate. The brain isn't really any more analog than your laptop though.

There are lots of definitions of what "intelligent" means. There are widely accepted ones too. There isn't really one where the human brain is, and everything else isn't.

Well, let's see... first of all, the brain is not digital

It's not?

My point was that the LLMs claim to know everything but when they don't know something they just make things up where a human is likely to say "sorry, don't know," or at least say "My guess is X" rather than "Oh yeah, it's X. Definitely X. What do you mean it doesn't exist? Oh, sorry, I just made that up. My bad."

That was good for a laugh this morning. Especially posted on Slashdot right after the guy claiming that what the brain does is uncomputable. Because... it is, that's why.

You can train an LLM to say it doesn't know, or even build pretty good objective confidence metrics. We don't, because people don't like it. We don't like it in humans either.

Everyone who's ever made that claim about something in the real world has been wrong. Why do you think this is different?

I'm pretty sure a data center cutoff is bad on an under voltage too.

1) grid under supplies and voltage drops
2a) grid requests more power from flexible (gas) plants
2b) HUGE customers completely cut their draw
3) more power with less demand causes huge over voltage

The purpose of depreciation is to track the actual value of the asset. The value of that GPU you bought in 2020, or your car, actually did decrease over time by any way you care to measure it.

You can try and play around with the depreciation rate for creative accounting purposes but governments tend to dictate one for taxes and you generally have to tell investors how you calculated your non-tax one. The bill also comes due whenever you eventually dispose of the asset.

Nah, 10 years ago they still had the same definition the GP is using: AI is a machine that can do things machines cannot currently do.

That does not change the fact that as soon as one develops a self-improving AI, the world will become a very different and probably very awful place.

Why? It's funny, a bunch of people believe AI is absolutely impossible because you can't create a soul or brains are magic or hyperdimensional pineal gateways or something. The rest seem to believe it can do anything including instantly becoming so intelligent it's magic.

So the answer to the GP's question is "yes."

I don't think you need AI for that either. LinkedIn was just as douchey before.

Improving capital is where that extra capital comes from.

Capital is the means of production, minus land and labour. It's fairly comprehensive to think of it as all the tools, procedures, etc. that make up a business, whether that business is one guy in the yard of his hut or a multinational corporation. It's reasonable to think of a business itself as a machine, and the machine is capital.

Improving capital means making it work better. Designing and building better tools and procedures to produce whatever you're producing more efficiently. If you take some funny rocks, bake them in a pile of mud you carefully designed, and pound them into swords, you've improved capital. If you buy a hammer, an anvil, a forge and some iron, and learn to make horseshoes, you've improved capital. If you buy some guy's smithy and figure out you can make horseshoes cheaper by casting or stamping them, and build equipment and procedures to do that, then you've improved capital again. You started with existing capital, assembled it into a machine and/or innovated a bit and ended up with a machine (which is capital) that produces something valuable its original parts did not.

The most basic feature of capitalism is the idea that the benefit from doing those things should go to the person(s) responsible, and by doing so will encourage people to improve capital. Related ideas are that anybody who wants to should be able to engage in that process and, almost always, that a free market determines value.

That idea is opposed to, for example, feudalism, where improvements you make will primarily benefit the lord, or communism, where they benefit the group. You figure out how to make horsehoes better or make a field produce more and you maybe get a nice thanks from the boss man, but the same ration as before.

Capitalism existed long before corporations, particularly modern ones, legal liability, or anything like that. Many people identify capitalism with things that are distinctly non-capitalist because they're frustrated with aspects of "capitalism" that aren't capitalist at all. Corporations, for example, are typically very similar to fedual systems internally, and both employees and employers expect them to be.

Running on a computer provided by friendly aliens, no doubt. Just like the pyramids.