That pollution is inevitable, why delay it? It's a technical problem they should be able to solve, and if they can't, then they're revealing the weakness of their methods and the shortcomings of their so-called AI.
It's absolutely ridiculous to expect the entire internet to adopt some kind of hygiene practices when it comes to text from GPT tools simply for the sake of making the training process slightly easier for a company that certainly should have the resources to solve the problem on their own.
If that's why you're using images instead of text you're fighting such a losing battle that it boggles my mind. Why even think about it?!
I can relate. My understanding of it thus far leads me to think I can summarize it fairly well though, and I would welcome other people's input or critique on this.
It seems like it's so consequential because he demonstrated that no matter what kind of mathematical system you're using -- and no matter how much mathematics generally speaking develops -- there will be objectively true mathematical statements within that system that can't be proven.
If that part of my understanding is correct, the part that's really interesting to me is whether we can know these true statements to be true, despite them not having proofs. This is where I could be misunderstanding things I suppose, but it suggests there's a disconnect between what's knowable and what's provable, and furthermore, that we can know more than we can prove.
To actual seasoned mathematicians: is this a really naive interpretation of what I've read, or not?
You need to be a bit more specific: no matter what kind of true, computable axiom-set you're using (this has nothing to do with 'how much mathematics generally speaking develops'), there will be objectively true mathematical statements that can't be proven by that axiom-set.
>a disconnect between what's knowable and what's provable
"what's provable [from a given axiom-set]" is a concrete, technical, unambiguously defined set of things. "what's knowable" is a vague philosophical set of things. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is a technical result about the former, and it's a common mistake to assume it says anything about the latter, except very tangentially.
For those who are interested in the misty area where the two things do overlap, I will shamelessly plug this 2-page paper of mine, "Mathematical shortcomings in a simulated universe": https://philpapers.org/archive/ALEMSI.pdf
I think they meant what is true, which is also concrete, technical and unambiguously defined in this setting. But you are very correct to make the distinction between truth and knowledge. Pointing out that many philosophers have believed that knowledge is justified true belief might elucidate the relationship a bit.
> If that part of my understanding is correct, the part that's really interesting to me is whether we can know these true statements to be true, despite them not having proofs.
There may be proofs, just using different fundamental axioms. The finding is that there is no initial set of axioms that by themselves allow proving all provable truths.
I really appreciate the way you've articulated your thoughts on this. It helped me reflect once again on the way Nietzsche affected me when I first read him.
I was about 20 years old, and had lost several important friends while also briefly dropping out of college. Saw Nietzsche on a bookshelf while making an effort to continue my education independently as I saved money. I was young enough to earnestly jump into pursuing "the whole damn truth," and my mental health be damned. Cue years of unrelenting depressiveness, self-absorption, solipsism, fragile and tragic romantic relationships, etc.
I completely agree, and I think a lot of people who don't "get" Nietzsche are actually reacting to his ideas perfectly rationally with respect to their (not necessarily anti-intellectual) values in life. I for one would have been much more fortunate to have studied him in an academic setting, with a group of peers. I recall reading once that Nietzsche's ideas are valuable insofar as one finds a resistance to them.
It's funny. I had a nihilistic mindset and found Nietzsche afterwards. I guess we're similar. Therefore I didn't had the chance to have any resistance to his ideas.
Recently I've dropped out of college, I was lonely in school and even nowadays, had several relationships that didn't last long and were painful. I've endured the pain of existence until I was able to comprehend it. I still feel this suffering every time I choose to feel.
I'm 20 years old now. I know how to help myself, but maybe there are things you want to say to your younger self. Maybe I can invite you to see this as a chance.
I never got much into Nietzsche, but well, between being trans, and having seasonal depression, and having been stuck in rural Alaska for twenty years, we can say that I've seen some depressive episodes.
It does get better.
One thing that helped was leaving the negative environment. Also, some of my angst sprang from the disempowerment of youth; having more power ($$, or in Spanish, effectivo) to control the world around you makes most life problems easier to deal with. Philosophically, I became something of a Stoic: this may be the worst of all possible worlds, but there's not really much value in being depressed about it. You are not in control of the world, but you are in control of your reaction to it, and as long as the world is absurd one may as well laugh. However, the ultimate key to my depression was simply self-acceptance. Try to make peace with your demons; they're just another aspect of you.
I doubt if your life and mine have many true parallels, but that was my path out of darkness. I hope that you may find peace, and the warmth of good feeling.
Didn't even click because it was so obvious. Why ask such a silly question when everyone can just nod their head, say 'yes' to themselves, and move on?
Super afraid for this technology to be applied to fetuses. Parents can't decide on an abortion? They can check if they think he or she will be ugly or not.
If the parents decide to abort based on a DNA prediction of ugliness, that kid would have a bad life either way. Those are terrible parents, and that would be such a rare scenario it seems basically irrelevant.
Imagine if you could pay a sum of money to have a certain number of eggs harvested and implanted, then measured to determine fitness over:
- Likelyhood of diabetes/cancer
- Height
- Intelligence
- Mental Illness
How strange would it be to add attractiveness to that list? Is it really being a bad parent to pick out the best attributes for your child?
There are a ton of embedded assumptions in this question, and I disagree with pretty much all of them. It wouldn't be that strange to add attractiveness to the list, but you're starting from a very already strange place. It's good parenting to pick the best for your kids. But that's different from picking your kids.
I disagree that it's "very strange" or even strange at all to "pick your kids", setting aside adoption.
Choosing which sperm is fittest is something that's done unconsciously (by the egg) and consciously (by choosing a partner), and selecting them through technology, (such as DNA sequencing or abortion) is just another method of accomplishing the goal that is fundamental to reproduction. So I disagree with the idea that it's strange to "pick your kids" - although that doesn't address moral issues.
As far as moral issues go, some people want to outlaw abortion of babies with Down Syndrome. But in any case, it's common to do that (in some places more than others), hence why people propose to stop it.
Eugenics is a bad word. My own thoughts are that while some people say "eugenics" and mean the selection of desirable genetic characteristics by anyone and any means, I think that is an untenable definition. I find it more useful to use "eugenics" to mean the selection of genetic characteristics by someone other than the parents, an external authority that "knows best". That is the sort of eugenics that I think ought to be guarded against, primarily.
How can you so blindly oversimplify a problem and then act like the rest of the world is incompetent for not solving it already?
Snow is not just increased visual noise. Just off the top of my head, with no experience in self-driving cars and limited experience in computer vision:
Snow (on the ground and street and curbs) is a vastly lower-contrast visual environment where numerous traditionally distinct features of the landscape are covered by a blanket of white.
Snow is a more dangerous and difficult-to-stop-in environment, with totally different physical dynamics. Recognizing pedestrians (and their intentions), road blocks, debris, etc. is probably already a challenging problem, and with snow it's not only more difficult, it needs to be done from a much farther distance to give adequate stopping time.
Along with snow there are issues with recognizing icy patches and other especially low traction sections on the road and adjusting control inputs accordingly.
I can't tell if you've never driven in snow or never even attempted a basic computer vision or robotics task in your life, or both.
I would like to chat for sure. I ran across Anki a few months ago, and thought about all the potentially incredible interactions between spaced repetition and Natural Language Processing techniques.
For a super basic idea, imagine a Chrome plugin that creates an Anki deck out of a Wikipedia article at the click of a button? (Maybe not the most useful application, but pretty neat and a great place for a simple proof of concept.)
And what if you took that a step farther and made an app that does the same thing with text extracted from an image set. So you could take pictures of a textbook page or pages and have it do the same thing with those.
Of course, there are many practical challenges to developing the NLP process in a way that it can identify the most salient parts of a text and capture flash-card-friendly phrases or factual statements, but I think the challenges could be overcome. And it would be an amazing feat to capture the benefits of spaced repetition without the upfront cost of manual deck creation.
You could call it version 1.0 of the system Neo uses to learn everything about everything in the Matrix :)
I don't think NLP is necessary though.
If you take a look at the stackoverflow data dump sooner or later every possible variation of a question for a particular answer is going to get asked. Ofcourse there are always new topics that haven't been covered but this is a minuscule portion of the entire data set.
I think it's a safe bet looking at Q&A happening on sites like Quora\Reddit etc in a couple years the chances that someone is going come up with a question that no one has asked before is going to be very low.
Wikipedia is missing 2 important pieces.
1. Linkage between all these questions and the content on the site. Currently Google provides this link.
2. A system to communicate to the reader what skill level /pre-reqs they need to fully appreciate/understand the content they are looking at. The UI for such a system already exists in most games.
Once these pieces are in place you are ready to create a very useful Anki deck on anything.
What most people don't realize is the entire mass of human knowledge given the size of most wiki/q&a site dump is about 100-150 GB. Throw in all the edu video content being produced on Khan Academy, NPTEL etc and you get to a 1-2TB. This isn't a big amount of data. All it needs is a learning system built on top of it for it all to be put to good use.
i think one of the problems with this one-click card software is part of the the reason anki is effective is you make the cards yourself. it is just part of the processes. ive been using anki for the past six month to learn italian, and had great success but books like forever fluent show studies that say if you dont create the cards yourself, you will not see as much progress.
I've tried stuff like this before and am certainly interested for language learning but there are drawbacks to becoming too efficient at entering flashcards. A huge amount of the benefit comes from seeking out and manually encoding the info into a flashcard. A big caveat on SRS systems that gets overlooked is they are very good at reinforcing knowledge but not great at teaching it to start with.
This was true 10-15 years ago. It is no longer true. Chess engines have positional evaluation algorithms that have been trained using many millions of games, and the weighting parameters for different kinds of positional features have been adjusted accordingly.
Do some reading on Stockfish for example if you doubt the veracity of my statement.
But its just as you say: its weighting parameters and heuristics. When Stockfish recognizes a backwards pawn, it deducts a point value. When Stockfish recognizes "pawn on 6th row", it adds a point value to that pawn.
But that's a heuristic. A trained heuristic using games, but still comes down to what I understand to be a +/- point value (like... +35 centipawns).
In contrast, a chess engine truly knows that if you do X move, it will force a Rook / Minor piece exchange in 8 moves.
When you play positionally vs Stockfish, you're arguing with a heuristic (a heuristic which has been refined over many cycles of machine learning, but a heuristic nonetheless that comes down to "+/- centipawns") . When you play tactically vs Stockfish, it is evaluating positions more than a dozen moves ahead of what is humanly possible.
When you play against Stockfish in endgame tablebase mode, it plays utterly, and provably, perfectly.
Take a pick of what game you want to play against it. IMO, I'd bet on its positional "weakness" (yes, it is still very strong at positional play, but it is the most "heuristical" part of the engine)
It's absolutely ridiculous to expect the entire internet to adopt some kind of hygiene practices when it comes to text from GPT tools simply for the sake of making the training process slightly easier for a company that certainly should have the resources to solve the problem on their own.
If that's why you're using images instead of text you're fighting such a losing battle that it boggles my mind. Why even think about it?!