zurew

Yeah I agree that it can be useful for multiple different things , but I tried to show some of things tthat I and others have recognized regarding its semantic understanding and its reasoning capability. The article I linked shows many examples ,but here is another one with many examples: https://medium.com/@konstantine_45825/gpt-4-cant-reason-2eab795e2523 I recommend to check this one as well: https://amistrongeryet.substack.com/p/gpt-4-capabilities This is also interesting as well:

Yes and it fails answering trivially easy questions that a guy in elementary school could answer. It makes zero sense to say that it has a semantic understanding of things and at the same time it fails giving the right answer for trivial questions. Yes, sometimes it can provide the right answer to more complex questions, but if it would actually have a semantic understanding - it wouldn't fail answering the trivial questions - therefore , I will say it again - it only deals with patterns and doesnt understand the meaning of any thing. Right now you could do this with me: Give me a foreign language that I understand literally nothing about - in terms of meaning of sentences and words - and then give me a question in that foreign language and the right answer below. If I memorize the syntax (meaning, if I can recognize which symbol comes after which other symbol) then I will be able to give the right answer to said question even though I semantically understand nothing about the question nor about the answer - I can just use the memorized patterns. The AI seem to be doing the exact same ,except with a little twist that it can somewhat adapt said memorizedpatterns and if it sees a pattern that is very similar to another pattern that it already ecountered with in its training data, then - in the context of answering questions - it will assume the answer must be the exact same or very similar to it, even though changing one word or adding a , to a question might change its meaning entirely. Here is one example that demonstrates this problem

The stage yellow AI needs to be exceptionally and intelligently prompted? --------- But yeah, I know sometimes it can do good things (if you figure out what prompt can work). But it proves my earlier point about the problem that currently it doesn't really know the semantics of things - it only remembers patterns - and once you change that pattern(in this case the prompt) a little bit (in a way where the meaning is essentially the same), it falls apart and fails to apply the right pattern.

lol

@Yousif - see what @Raze did there? He actually made points and he directly engaged with the question that was asked to you. Once you grow out of your non-dual-rambling-wannabe-guru phase, maybe you will be capable to do that to, but until then - I will stop engaging with you, because its a total waste of everyones time.

@Yousif Yeah as I thought, you have nothing of substance to contribute to any of the conflict - you are here to give platitudes (that everyone knows) and to virtue signal. The problem with what you are doing is that you are derailing the thread and stopping other people from having a substantive conversation.

Yeah this is virtue signaling - literally everyone knows this, but war comes with the killing of innocent lives and what you don't take into account is that being passive sometimes can bring more innocent deaths than engaging in wars - thats why you need to drop the platitudes and come back to real life and try to actually analyze and engage with the situation so that you can come up with the best strategy according to your knowledge that can actually minimize the global suffering and death long term.

@Yousif without virtue signaling and rambling about non-duality can you give an exact, concise plan what should Israel do?

Fell free to suggest something different than eliminating Hamas

@Danioover9000 If you want to engage productively stop posturing and virtue signaling - literally no one cares. Everyone has emotions and feelings around this topic so I dont see how thats engage or contradicts anything that was said. So many new and novel things being said there, good job. "you are biased, therefore I won't directly engage with anything that was said" - a very intelligent and productive way to argue. All of your points are stupid, because it can be used for both sides. I taught you werent in favour of relativising the morality of both sides. Waiting for another of your schizo-rants.

Why would you use the absolute numbers of civilians killed to establish intent? I already gave posts why thats a much worse metric to go by compared to relative risk.

Yeah this is a good metaphore. Does the progress in climbing up trees a good and reliable metric to track the progression of reaching the moon?

Maybe or maybe not. Maybe they will eventually abandon LLM-s because they find a roadblock - we have no idea. Making confident statements and predictions is useless, because even experts are shooting in the dark nad are making wildly different statements about AGI. It seems to be the case that it gets the syntax of things (the rules) but it doesn't really get the semantics (the abstract meaning of things) - this can be demonsrated if you use any gpt or LLM model. And again there is still the problem with- the how you need to connect the domain specific AI-s together. There is also a big problem with self deception as you increase intelligence. If you scale things up a lot, that will make it harder for the AI to introspect and we probably want the AI to have an ability to develop its own self - and a prerequisite to that is the ability to introspect.

Sora is another example of a domain specific AI , but its not clear how we are advancing towards AGI (where you can connect all the domain specific AIs together under one framework that actually works the way we want it to work). Its like we are always pushing back the problem of how we need to connect each pieces together so that AGI can emerge, while pretending that we are making real progression on the problem. Merely creating more and more advanced domain specific AIs wont be sufficient - you need to connect them in a specific way. Its like we use the progress of domain specific AI and mistaken it for the progress towards AGI.

Yeah one of the strongest argument to support this is the fact that when Hamas first arrived on oct 7, there were no Israeli soldiers near them (most of them were at home on a holiday). There were places where Israeli soldiers only arrived 4-6 or more hours after the attack, so at those places Hamas could literally do freely whatever they wanted and they still killed civilians (so , it would be nearly impossible to talk around how they werent intentionally targeting civilians). Also what possible reasoning could be given attacking people at a music festival? Btw im surprised this still considered contentious for some people here.

I agree. The assumption that this speed of development will stay being on an exponentional curve is big and I havent heared a strong argument yet that would properly ground it. There also seems to be an assumption, that if we just scale up these models and if we use more computing power - eventually general intelligence will just emerge. But, there are certain problems that can't be simply solved by more computing power - for example the relevance realization and other moral and philosophical problems. It feels similar to saying that "well with more technological development we will make something so that we can travel faster than light" - well noo, its not a matter of lack of technological development , its a problem with laws of physics and until you can contradict that, you can have as much technological development as you want, you will have certain limitations that you can't cross.

Yes, but ideally for the reasons I mentioned before , we should focus on relative risk (the blue) rather than on both or only on civilian casualty ratio. Now of course, none of these metrics are absolute. The more variables we add, the bigger picture we can get about the war, however the issue is with the weighing of all variables. For instance, in my view, relative risk has much more weight and is much more informative assessing genocidal intent, than damage done to buildings, but of course that damage shouldn't be ignored. There are still of course ways to try to establish genocidal intent, but it will be hard, because you will have to explain how can you get such high relative risk, when you have genocidal intent in mind (and even there are other contradictory factors that you will have to blast through). Now, do you need to establish genocidal intent on Israel's part to make criticism towards Israel? No, of course not, and a lot of people here in this thread and in other places as well seem to forget that you don't have to die on this hill (that you have to prove genocideal intent). You can defend the Palestinian side without needing to use weak and bad arguments to prove genocidal intent. There are a lot of others crisicisms and arguments you can make against Israel and such arguments will be much easier to defend and to establish (for example damage done to buildings or you can pick any other thing). Regardless what side you are on (anyone who is reading this) - people need to stop using civilian casualty ratio to prove genocidal intent, because relative risk is just more reliable for that.

Here is the same graph with civilian casualty ratio as well (all the orange supposed to show the civilian casualty ratio and the blue the relative risk).

Yes, if we plug in the numbers to calculate the relative risk (RR) for this war , it will be high (the higher the RR, the higher the likelihood that militants are being targeted over civilians) and even if we use hamas friendly numbers, according to this metric , this is a quantitative evidence against the hypothesis that Israel is indiscriminately targeting everyone. Here is the current ongoing unfinished project that this dude does, where he calculates the Relative Risk (RR) for multiple wars. People can look at this and can get a sense, how well or how bad it tracks genocidal intent. There are explainers on the graph for how you need to interpret the graph.

I already shared the video in this thread a while back, but I will share it again. He uses examples to demonstrate whats the problem if you don't use the per capita version of it. So here is the video time stamped:

You guys using and obsessively holding onto the civilian to combatant ratio and not the per capita version of it to prove genocidal intent, is still incredibly sad that you think thats a reliable way to assess anything.

What feelings? What oversimplifications? I havent provided any position on the situation, Im only trying to systematically follow and question the justifications you provided and so far the reasons you provided seem to be completely falling apart after getting 2 layers deep in the line of questioning. No one forced you, but you took a position where you think a country is justified in invading another country if it feels threatened by it and now that I showed some of the bad entailments of such a view, you are trying to wash it away by saying that Im oversimplifying things - no, im showing what your position entails. If you want to adjust that position, go ahead do so. If you want to provide different justifications that you think can hold their grounds you are free to do so, but then be clear that you want to abandon all the justifications that you provided so far. Or if you don't want to abandon any of the justifications, then I would appreciate if you would answer the questions that I gave you in my earlier reply.

So as long as a country claims it feels threatened by x thats a good enough justification to invade x. I think thats a pretty weak and vague justification ,given that literally any country could use that right now against any other country. Yeah I agree, thats why I disagree with such vague justifications - it can basically be applied by anyone ,especially against Russia right now. One more reason why you should have written agreements. Its pretty weak on Russia's part that their main argument for invading is not even grounded in a written agreement. Again based on this low standard for invading - literally any country could come up with any weak reason to ground their belief of feeling threatened. Oh it does hold a lot of value, because they could point to something very tangible other than literally making up any baseless claim without evidence. This seems like an attempt to pivot from the original reason. The original reason of "we can't let Nato get close to Moscow" is now being abandoned and we are changing it to saying , Russia only has problem with Nato members that are close to Moscow and have good enough geographic advantages. What kind of geographic advantages a country needs to have, so that Russia can be justified in invading them? I reject the idea that Estonia and Latvia are not a threat to Russia if we define threat as Putin did. Whats the argument that establishes how Latvia and Estonia are in Russian control? Like what exactly is stopping NATO from arming up both of those countries with missiles and other weapons?

When I said nonsense I didn't specifically refer to this war (even though I disagree with the idea ,that if I feel threatened that justifies invading a country), I spoke about in general and try to point out whats the entailment of such reasoning, that says you need to do everything to avoid war. Do you think feeling threatened justifies invading a country in general? "I feel threatened , therefore I am justified to invade a country" - even though there were already Nato members close to Moscow (Latvia, Estonia). So how is that reasoning comes anywhere near justifying invading Ukraine? (even under the moral system that says it is okay to invade a country if you feel threatened) I have seen this talking point repeated, but to my knowledge there was never a written agreement that would specifically underline the claim you made there. So, in the agreement that you brought up, where does it says that Ukraine can't become a Nato member?

No. Thats like essentially saying you will obey whatever nonsense excuse or reason any country will come up with, cause they said if you don't do it they will go to war. Like giving a free ticket and control to the global political landscape. - Of course there are lines that needs to be drawn somewhere, where you evaluate the reasons put on the table. You can say that, but on the other hand lets not forget that such corruption destroys millions of lives and more given how long a corruption will stay alive. In this case. there is not much difference between doing vs allowing harm.