agamemnonymous
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
Dude, your question is dumb and useless. I “avoided” your question by explaining why it was dumb and useless. Re-read, then re-read again, then watch some YouTube videos about exponential functions, then watch some videos about the AI singularity, then do whatever you want after that because I’m done trying to teach the unteachable.
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
Iykyk
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
Again, buddy, no. That’s not how math works. Math does not fit things to curves, math generates the curves. The object of math is the function, the ones that take data sets and fit them to curves are data analysts, for the purpose of predicting future behavior.
Zooming in on a particular section of a curve and observing that it looks roughly linear at that scale does not make the underlying function, which generates that curve, linear. Exponential growth is exponential growth, and it starts before the “knee”. It’s there the whole time, even when it looks linear.
Every continuous function looks linear when you zoom in enough, that’s how derivatives work in calculus. The exponential function looks linear right up until it starts to not look linear anymore. The point of mapping real world systems to functions is to predict their future behavior, not just describe their present status.
The prediction that AI will go exponential is based on the premise of AI generating future AIs. Obviously, as AI gets better, the AIs that it generates will get better. As AI increases, the AIs thus generated increase by a factor of AI^2 . Once AI generated AIs are equivalent to those developed by a human, i.e. AI = 1, the rate of increase will accelerate, since every new model can make an even better model, which can make even better ones, ad infinitum.
No one knows for sure exactly what is going to enable AI to generate powerful AIs, but once it happens that’s the knee. That’s why it’s hypothesized to be exponential. And that has big consequences, which is why people are eager not to miss the signs that it’s ramping up.
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
What metric are you using? Data can’t really be fit to a curve without data to plot.
The entire contention is you misunderstanding how exponential functions work., i.e. “if it’s exponential, shouldn’t we be rapidly accelerating by now?” Betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.
People don’t expect AI to be exponential because of existing data. It’s because once AI starts significantly improving itself, the advancement of AI, x, starts to apply to itself x^2 .
We won’t know if it is, in fact, exponential until after the “knee” of the curve. But a slow advancement now does not preclude rapid acceleration in the near future. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated throughout the thread that you don’t understand this.
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
They grow proportionately to ax^n . Correspondingly, for values of x < 1, they look very similar to a simple library slope. For values of x > 1, they grow very rapidly. Both portions are part of the function, it doesn’t suddenly “become” exponential at the rapid increase, it’s exponential the whole time.
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
In algebra? The basic properties of exponential functions, for one.
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
You don’t get Nobel prizes for going to math class. What you do get is a basic understanding of math, which is more than sufficient to correct you on this. This was covered in Algebra, man. Review your notes.
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
Buddy, I can say with confidence I’ve taken math courses you’ve never even heard of. You do not know what you’re talking about.
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
The slope which increases, the slope is slightly greater at the right side than the left. Every continuous curve looks linear if you zoom in enough, that’s pretty much the basis of calculus. I think you might need to review how exponents work before hammering your opinions about them. You keep insisting on vibes-based definitions to people who clearly have more mathematical education than you.
Instead of doubling down on a misunderstanding, maybe consider the opportunity to learn from others and correct your misconceptions for the future.
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 3 days ago:
Looks exponential to me
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 4 days ago:
I think we can’t know, but LLMs definitely feel like a notable acceleration. Exponential functions are also, well, exponential. As X grows, X × X grows faster. The exponential part is gonna come from meta-models, coordinating multiple specialized models to complete complex tasks. Once we get a powerful meta-model, we’re off to the races. AI models developing AI models.
It could take 50 years, it could take 5, it could happen this Wednesday. We won’t know which development is going to be the one to tip us over the edge until it happens, and even then only in retrospect. But it could very well be soon.
- Comment on If AI was going to advance exponentially I'd of expected it to take off by now. 4 days ago:
No, exponential functions are that way. A feature of exponential functions is that it increases very slowly until the slope hits 1. We’re still on the slow part, we didn’t really have any way of knowing exactly the extreme increase will be.
- Comment on Fresh 6 days ago:
So it is. So still not a bong, but it does add smoke to the sewer gas.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 days ago:
That’s what I meant by “false positives”. They are measuring responses related to lying, but not exclusively and not reliably.
- Comment on It's a Sham! 6 days ago:
No sir I do not use shampoo for my wigs, only use real poo. Nothing but the best poo for my wigs.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 days ago:
many graphs of sensors output not having anything to do with honest or dishonest responses.
Well, they sense physiological changes associated with dishonesty (stress/nervousness). The problem is they can’t pick up false positives (someone being honest despite being nervous under interrogation) or false negatives (someone who can remain totally unfazed while being dishonest).
So while technically they do have something to do with honest/dishonest responses, it’s nowhere near a direct enough correlation to be useful for the purpose.
- Comment on Thanks angry Italian chef, we're saved! 6 days ago:
My question is, if he’s going to work, how come it looks like he’s already messy from dinner service?
- Comment on Fresh 6 days ago:
Not really a bong if you bypass the water. That’s just a pipe with a decorative water feature.
- Comment on Let me solo her. 1 week ago:
- Comment on No looky for you! 1 week ago:
And it looks like sudsy vomit recirculating I’ve your dishes. Ain’t nobody wanna see that.
- Comment on science never ends 1 week ago:
I’ve taken to distinguishing between science(v), the method and science(n), the body of models and data. Science(v) is imperfect, but basically as close as we can get to objective truth. Science(n) can often stress conclusions further than their rigor justifies, but eventually regresses to the mean for the most part.
You can’t really question science(v) beyond its intrinsic epistemology, and no other method can really do any better. You can often question science(n), heck I can’t count the number of times “consensus” flip-flopped on red wine, coffee, fat, and so on. But eventually science(v) does bring science(n) to a stable empirical baseline.
- Comment on 3D printers leave hidden ‘fingerprints’ that reveal part origins 1 week ago:
Bold of you to assume the mistakes my printer makes are in any way consistent.
- Comment on 3D printers leave hidden ‘fingerprints’ that reveal part origins 1 week ago:
Bold of you to assume my prints come out the way they’re supposed to.
- Comment on Sorry for not filling your weekend with shitposts. 1 week ago:
Can’t pretty much everything about our bodies ultimately be traced back to ancient fish?
Also congrats
- Comment on Pain 1 week ago:
It’s not a male/female thing.
Forgot to shave today = hooks
Haven’t shaved in weeks = loops
- Comment on Do you think a story that mixes magic with super advanced technology can work? 1 week ago:
Sure. Maybe the advanced tech is powered by magic, maybe the “magic” is just lost advanced technology.
- Comment on Punctuation 2 weeks ago:
Shit you got me → Shit, you got me/jkJust wanna say this looks like the title of a sick hyperpop track.
- Comment on Punctuation 2 weeks ago:
Yeah I figured it was a profile for the dog, and the owner just saw him score and come back in a better mood.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
applause with your mouth
Did we forget the word “cheering”?
- Comment on There he goes 2 weeks ago:
I remember thinking every single thought possible and them branching out infinitely from each individual one of those and also thinking the opposite of them all at the same time.
I ate a bunch of caffeine pills once. Between bouts of intense nausea I remember being in bed, feeling distinctly like a giant rectangular slab of jello, with my emotions and memories being little pockets of jelly suspended in my form.
