Your “probably not” argument gets thinner every major AI update.

Right, but I’m talking about whether they’re already using it, not whether they will in the future. It’s certainly interesting to speculate about it though. I don’t think we really know for sure how good it will get, and how fast.

Something interesting that’s come up is scaling laws. Compute, dataset size, and parameters so far appear to create a limit to how low the error rate can go, regardless of the model’s architecture. And dataset size and model size appear to require being scaled up in tandem to avoid over-/under-fitting. It’s possible, although not guaranteed, that we’re discovering fundamental laws about pattern recognition. Or maybe it’s just an issue with our current approach.

Hold on now, this one might not be so spurious…

With what flour? :/

Has anyone figuted out how long it will take for this to affect our food supply? Surely at least prices will increase, if not outright shortages happen?

Alphago was designed entirely within the universe of Go. It is fundamentally tied to the game; a game with simple rules and nothing but rule-following patterns to analyze. So it can make good go moves, because it has been trained on good go moves. Or self-trained using a simulated game maybe, idk how they trained it.

ChatGPT is trained the same way, but on human speech. It is very, very good at writing human speech. This requires it to be able to mimick our speech patterns, which means its mimickry will resemble coherent thought, but it’s not. In short, ChatGPT is not trained to make political decisions. If you’ve seen the paper where they ask it to run a vending machine company, you can see some of the issues with trying to force it to make real-world decisions like running a political campaign.

You could train an AI specifically to make political campaign decisions, but I’m not aware of a good dataset you could use for it.

Could AI have been used to help run a campaign? Yes. Would it have been better than humans doing it? Probably not.

The AI isn’t helping much, but there’s also no resistance, so… rip.

I’m being combative because I don’t get how you don’t understand our argument, and because I view claims like “You keep claiming things that are objectively false” to be hostile when they stem from a misunderstanding rather than a fault on my part.

Let me restate my main point: complex numbers can be defined as vectors with the necessary rules to define various operations, such as multiplication over them and how they relate to sqrt(-1). Those additional rules are just as important to their definition as their appearance as two real-numbered values is. Both vectors and complex numbers are defined by humans, but we have chosen to give them separate definitions, because each definition includes the rules defining these operations and relationships, and they are different between the two types of mathematical object.

And, for the record, I downvoted your posts that were hostile (not all of them) and responded in kind. It’s a separate effort than trying to prove my point here.

Right, but you need to specify that additional definition. Imaginary numbers are useful because they come pre-loaded with all those additional definitions about how to handle operations that use them.

I also find your hostile confusion unwarranted, given two other commenters have pointed out the same flaw in your argument that I have.

Maybe the image is of an arched ibex?

Yes, but the debate is the other way around: is a warrant an invitation?

“You can be cocky or wrong, but not both” 😛

Good on you for the edit though

I’m reading this after lemm.ee is gone

Words have meaning if you have the capability to read

Needs reasoning

Man, that’s a sweet ass-car.

There’s really no excuse for this

We do a little lying

There’s research in this area, I don’t feel like debating it as if it were a matter of opinion.

A math discovery unmotivated by research in other fields; just discovering math to see if it works out

I don’t think this is really an accurate way of thinking about them. Yes, they can be mapped to a 2d plane, so you can represent them with their two real-numbered coordinates along the real and imaginary axes, but certain operations with them (eg. multiplication) can be done easily with complex numbers but are not obvious how to carry out with just grid points. (3,4) * (5,6) isn’t well-defined, but (3+4i) * (5+6i) is.