Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

@nomizomichani Nah, we who have experienced things can imagine not having sensation and still feel like having a "self". But that doesn't necessarily mean that we'd have one in the first place if we had no sensation to kick start it. We needed some input. We had to learn to see, hear and feel etc. Our brain physically change based on its use long term, things we don't use slowly go getting weaker and eventually vanishing, while what we use a lot get stronger. Be that the ability to notice negative/positive aspects about the world, seeing problems and threats/solutions and safety, etc... Our whole experience of the world was learned from input... How the heck would that even be possible without input?
3
 @TJ-hs1qm Algorithms using evolution?
2
 @Nat-oj2uc Is there or is it more of a slope with no distinct steps based on the size of a neural network (essentially its processing capacity) and its inputs?
2
@mademedothis424 If we craft the objectives it's probably not going to be a general purpose intelligence in that way. We find objectives ourselves through looking at the patterns in our inputs, and sometimes those objectives run counter to the evolutionary processes creating them in the first place...
2
@fredygump5578 They do have needs due to the reward functions in the case of reinforcement learning. On the evolutionary side there's a "need" to survive and therefore to be more fit for a environment where understanding might be required to survive...
1
@mariusg8824 Not exactly. Bing won't learn directly from its conversations with you pr say as its training is done through training another network that's trying to guess what ChatGPT outputs we humans would prefer, and that network is only trained by human reinforcement learning done by people hired by them. Not you. So ChatGPTs reward function, so to speak won't be influenced by what you're saying or doing at all. Also, that other network doesn't have to be turned on for ChatGPT or bing for that matter to talk with you. So the network itself isn't necessary changed by the input all the time, however in bings case it has real time access to inputs not from you but the internet that it can use to help inform its output. And earlier parts of the conversation is also *inputs*. But it's more like "seeing" the past and present at the same time rather than actually remembering it, and more like seeing or smelling or something the internet then actually learning. If you get my meaning? Bing only learns when the other network is running. And that other network will only change how it evaluates ChatGPTs output and rewards it when a human (hired by them) is interacting with the other network... So they choose how much bing will learn and from what conversations...
1
@misterlau5246 No, it's not limited to things in its training data. It can learn patterns and create new things using those patterns. That said, it has access to different patterns them we do. Like we have access to eyes and hands etc giving us a better understanding of the physical world while ChatGPT is more like someone numb and blind etc. Basically just having a single sense, that text input and output. It can deduce quite a few things, but only from that source, while we have other information sources to help improve our understanding. It can write something innovative if you ask it the correct questions.
1
@mariusg8824 That's the reason they're doing it this way.
1
4:20 The issue with nuclear, and base load electricity in general is that it discourages investment into both renewables and more importantly energy storage technology. Furthermore, when people say that nuclear is green, that only applies to existing nuclear power plants that has run a long time, as a majority of the climate coat has already been paid a long time ago with those. Actually building a new nuclear power plant is not green. And it's nonrenewable, so you're just kicking the bucket down the street... I don't think that closing the existing nuclear power plants where a good idea, the timing was off, and the replacement coal power was worse. But building new ones is definitely a bad idea. Instead work on actually regulating windmills so they're more durable and safe and less bothersome for people and animals nearby. Installed with less impact on their surroundings (roads etc). And with benefits for the local community like genuinely cheaper power etc...
1
11:21 Actually, it kind of is. It's not just externalities. Capitalist theories are based on axioms that's just not correct. And it's not like people traded apples for eggs in the past. They traded it for essentially favours. I give you a gift, you give me a gift etc. And if I need tools to make something we just make a deal, no "money" is accumulated, but deals are struck and resources distributed. There's many possible alternative systems to capitalism. But capitalism is currently holding a monopoly on the market so to speak.
1
Hypersonic missiles probably won't be usefull for delivering nukes. But in ship to ship or air to air combat they might concivably be usefull, no?
1
For all we know the universe didn't exist a second ago and won't in the next second. It could be created in its current state, just like one of those transporter print outs. And there would be no way for us of knowing that this was the case if every single particle had the right "kick".
1