Communist

Is that useful for completing tasks?

How do you define consciousness?

It’s even a work pc, there’s a thread on the microsoft forums detailing how common the problem is.

I have had to use windows for like the last two weeks and the taskbar crashes and freezes constantly so I put a bat file on my desktop that kills and reopens explorer.exe also if my bluetooth headphones disconnect while my mic is muted it refuses to unmute… I have to reboot. This is what people say is a “it just works” experience.

It’s liquid ass

That’s not the only way to make meaningful change, getting people to give up on llms would also be meaningful change. This does very little for anyone who isn’t apple.

Meaningful change is not happening because of this paper, either, I don’t know why you’re playing semantic games with me though.

It does need to do that to meaningfully change anything, however.

that’s very true, I’m just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.

also, it’s not as unreasonable as that because these are automatically assembled bundles of simulated neurons.

It is, but this did not prove all architectures cannot reason, nor did it prove that all sets of weights cannot reason.

essentially they did not prove the issue is fundamental. And they have a pretty similar architecture, they’re all transformers trained in a similar way. I would not say they have different architectures.

those particular models. It does not prove the architecture doesn’t allow it at all. It’s still possible that this is solvable with a different training technique, and none of those are using the right one. that’s what they need to prove wrong.

this proves the issue is widespread, not fundamental.

That indicates that this particular model does not follow instructions, not that it is architecturally fundamentally incapable.

I think it’s important to note (i’m not an llm I know that phrase triggers you to assume I am) that they haven’t proven this as an inherent architectural issue, which I think would be the next step to the assertion.

do we know that they don’t and are incapable of reasoning, or do we just know that for x problems they jump to memorized solutions, is it possible to create an arrangement of weights that can genuinely reason, even if the current models don’t? That’s the big question that needs answered. It’s still possible that we just haven’t properly incentivized reason over memorization during training.

if someone can objectively answer “no” to that, the bubble collapses.

Vesktop

Vesktop

I have, I simply disagree with your conclusions.

No, the machine will and so would a conscious one. you misunderstand. This isn’t an area where a conscious machine wins.

Tell me, if consciousness prevents this, why did humans do it?

These have been listed repeatedly: love, think, understand, contemplate, discover, aspire, lead, philosophize, etc.

these are not tasks except maybe philosophize and discover, which even current models can do… heck google is using old shitty ones to do it…

https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/

I said a task, not a feeling, a task is a manipulation of the world to achieve a goal, not something vague and undefinable like love.

We want a machine that can tell us what to do, instead.

theres no such thing, there’s no objective right answer to this in the first place, it’s not like a conscious being we know of can do this, why would a conscious machine be able to? This is just you asking the impossible, consciousness would not help even the tiniest bit with this problem. you have to say “what to do to achieve x” for it to have meaning, which these machines could do without solving the hard problem of consciousness at all.

yet again you fail to name one valuable aspect of solving consciousness. You keep saying we need the hard problem of consciousness solved for agi but can’t name even one way in which it provides a functional improvement to anything.

Why do you expect an unthinking, non-deliberative zombie process to know what you mean by “empower humanity”? There are facts about what is GOOD and what is BAD that can only be grasped through subjective experience.

these cannot be grasped by subjective experience, and I would say nothing can possibly achieve this, not any human at all, the best we can do is poll humanity and go by approximates, which I believe is best handled by something automatic. humans can’t answer these questions in the first place, why should I trust something without subjective experience to do it any worse?

When you tell it to reduce harm, how do you know it won’t undertake a course of eugenics?

because this is unpopular, there are many things online saying not to… do you think humans are immune to this? When has consciousness ever prevented such an outcome?

How do you know it won’t see fit that people like you, by virtue of your stupidity, are culled or sterilized?

we don’t, but we also don’t with conscious beings, so there’s still no stated advantage to consciousness.

You don’t understand the claims you’re making if you can’t explain them. Try again this time actually explaining yourself rather than just going “some guy said I’m right”, you keep doing that without engaging with the discussion, and you keep assuming the guy verified your claim when they actually verified an irrelevant one.