My position is not never, and it never was. It's not now, and it's that assuming it is physically possible someday is as erroneous as assuming it isn't. We don't know if it is possible or not, we only know we cannot do it now.

Did your mommy let you hold her phone again? Tell her to call me.

We can make motors without any permanent magnets just fine, the problem is that they require more complex control circuitry and our IC production is in the toilet.

You forgot dumbshits who don't know shit, who are the primary audience for LLM-based AI.

They also have to be fit for purpose. Sometimes this is spelled out explicitly in so many words, in other cases you can just return or reject things that "don't work".

Nobody said it was on the tool, but sometimes, it is factually also on the provider of the tool. Pretending otherwise doesn't change the law. If the provider is negligent, they can share in responsibility. This is how things other than LLMs work, why not LLMs too?

Guns have safeties even though they can get in your way, for safety's sake. Equipment has lockouts. Most things come with warnings. Automobiles are starting to get automated guardrails like automatic braking and eventually won't allow you to e.g. steer into another vehicle, because it's feasible to prevent and there is a public safety interest. There's simply zero justification for the multi-billion dollar corporations producing and selling access to these LLMs to not institute some guardrails of their own.

That the opposite of insightful discussion, because it's the proponents of machine sapience who have the good press now... and it is universally bullshit.

Billions of years of evolution producing a human brain does not speak for or against our ability to simulate one. But so far, we can not do that, so the irrelevance of the question is overshadowed by the irrelevance of asking it. Maybe someday we can, but we can't yet. We don't know enough to even know whether or not we can. That's not an argument against trying, but it's evidence that we still lack enough information to do it, whether we otherwise have the technology or not.

I enjoyed his books very much, but no he was not on point. He claimed we'd have the means to create superhuman intelligence before now, and you have just admitted that nobody would claim that has been achieved, 3 years after he claimed it could happen, and despite billions being spent to attempt it. So no, that was just another religious opinion unsupported by science, and you showed here that you have enough information to know that yet still somehow didn't get it.

That is also magical thinking, but no more so than the idea that by throwing circuits with complexity similar to that which we have discovered in the human brain so far, we will inevitably create consciousness. That is not just wishful thinking, it's clueless. We keep finding more complexity in the brain, so it's still a moving target which is enough to defeat such an argument on its own, and transistors are not neurons which is also enough to prove it's a folly.

Catalysts make a bigger difference to air quality than the gasoline blend because unburned hydrocarbons are the most harmful automotive emission in every category, whether you mean health impact, GWP, or even just how offensive the air becomes to breathe, and catalysts are there specifically to cause them to burn.

You don't care about the rule of law? You do know that anarchy leads naturally to feudalism, right? There's no relief there, just the cycle repeating.

This sounds like a pretty normal number but...

Humans are not fungible, except superficially.

While this is true, they will just shut most of the added power capacity down because it's now not profitable enough to operate, and it's going to be more of AI's toxic legacy.

Most of the suddenly discounted GPUs are going to be from Nvidia, which is irritating because their Linux drivers suck :)

That seems true if you just ignore all the people it doesn't work for, and all of the externalities that come from it. Which is of course exactly how those studies work. They are sufficient to fool the fools, which is all they need to do.

The whole point of AI is for it to do work instead of us. Fantasizing about it creating new jobs for us to spend our lives doing instead of enjoying existing is really quite sad. We should be envisioning what we can spend our lives doing instead of slaving away for someone else's profit in hopes that we will be permitted to retire someday.

Better for who?

Yes, that certainly helped prevent civil unrest.

But now we're not going to have enough work for everyone to work full time, and the people who own everything won't let anyone have enough money to live on if they don't do that. Actually, they won't let lots of people who DO work full time have enough to live on.

Do you have a proposal as to how people can get their needs met without eating the rich?

That's always been a characteristic of AI believers. That's where the idea of the AI singularity comes from, magical thinking.

The encyclopedia doesn't explain how to make explosives because that's not its job. The anarchist's cookbook sort of does but it's dangerous to follow because some of the recipes are very bad, but even that has been determined to not be illegal. And some of the recipes WILL work, and those aren't illegal either. If you go to the library you can get a plan for a nuclear weapon or a gun.

It's not just information being provided, it's how it's couched. The LLM presents its bullshit to you as a gift in celebration of your intelligence.