SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
At some point even the dullards on PB are going to sit back one day and think: OK, oh shit, Leon had a point
Its just that you're very much like an AI model.
There's no fundamental understanding of the topic and the data points going into your brain are the most unreliable inflammatory ones. Thus we get a bunch of perverse predictions
D'you just mean a full list of drivers and positions? Or the betting result?
The things you are discussing. I read your article without knowing the race result, which you buried somewhere near the end. You also seemed to be talking about your tips without reminding people what they were.
Second and FPT but still on topic - another example of Royal intervention in indyref. Treating Scotland like an exile colony ... not as if he has any connection or anything, so far as I am aware.
'While it is understood that Andrew – seen out horse-riding at Windsor yesterday – is determined to keep his Royal Lodge estate in Windsor, one option could be for him to rebuild his life in Scotland.'
I keep saying, he should be given a remote island in the Hebrides where he can sulk in peace.
We can call it the Peed Off Isle after his...mood.
Grossly unfair on the Western Isles.
Do you think this is a plot to dump him in a gatekeeper's cottage in Balmoral?
When he was UK Trade Envoy he was a de facto diplomat so make him Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia or Afghanistan.
You can't send him anywhere as ambassador where the appointment won't be viewed as a calculated insult. This did briefly move me to nominate Moscow, but even in that case we're going to have to talk to Putin eventually.
Anyway, the nonsense about trying to rehabilitate him will end with the current reign. Under King Charles III (who I think will tragically disappoint you by turning out to be a successful monarch,) Andrew will be lucky not to end up as resident Governor of South Georgia.
If we do end up at war with Russia and he dusts off the cobwebs and gets back on active service in a 'copter, recaptures the old Falklands glory with a series of swoops and kills in the skies over Ukraine, perhaps then on his return he could be rehabilitated to some extent and eased back into public life. And if he doesn't return, well this is in itself a resolution.
Any better ideas I'm all ears.
His moment of glory in the Falklands was turning on the blip enhancer on his helicopter - the idea was to create a bigger and better target for missiles. In theory, since the threat was sea skimmers, you simply fly a bit above the ocean and they would fly underneath you.
The Russian missiles causing trouble in Ukraine are mostly not true sea skimmers. So turn on the blimp enhancer and get a posthumous medal, probably.
Posthumous medal AND the holy grail objective - rehabilitation. I do see a possible flaw though. He's 62 now not 22. Could he still cut the mustard up there when the chips are down?
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
AI — the first couple of minutes of this video (which went up an hour ago) shows gpt-3 in live action; imo this is more impressive than just reading its (or lamda's) output. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_EF42H2ZC0
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
At some point even the dullards on PB are going to sit back one day and think: OK, oh shit, Leon had a point
More likely we'd have said it was project fear. Then when it happened we would have blamed Leon for not putting a good enough argument across.....
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Fascinatingly, given that hereditary peers now vote each other in, we now have hereditary electors like the HRE (the only other case I know of)
But thinking about the alleged Phatboi vs Chas face off it makes a powerful case for both abolishing the hereditary principle, and retaining it. Each of them effectively batting for the other side
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
I've been considering the implications of that Abba hologram concert that's doing great business atm. I haven't been (I'm waiting for the Boney M one) but apparently it's just like the real thing, literally like going back in time and seeing an Abba gig in 1982 or something.
So, tech being so fast moving once key barriers are cleared, how long before I can to all intents and purposes go to Woodstock, digitally go there with my tent and hippy girlfriend and be a part of it, watch Richie Havens kick it off, Joe Cocker singing With a Little Help from my Friends, the whole thing right through to Jimi and Star Spangled Banner?
Next year? Year after? - Or am I getting carried away?
No, you’re not getting carried away. All this shit is now really close
We could probably Deep Fake the Queen now - quite seriously - and she would never die. How many people see her in real life. She could just wave from carriages and say nice things to Paddington (another CGI) on screen and put the odd hologram on the balcony at Buck House and no one would know any different
Thus avoiding King Charles III, for a start, tho we need to turn off the “still loves Prince Andrew” module
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
Second and FPT but still on topic - another example of Royal intervention in indyref. Treating Scotland like an exile colony ... not as if he has any connection or anything, so far as I am aware.
'While it is understood that Andrew – seen out horse-riding at Windsor yesterday – is determined to keep his Royal Lodge estate in Windsor, one option could be for him to rebuild his life in Scotland.'
I keep saying, he should be given a remote island in the Hebrides where he can sulk in peace.
We can call it the Peed Off Isle after his...mood.
Grossly unfair on the Western Isles.
Do you think this is a plot to dump him in a gatekeeper's cottage in Balmoral?
When he was UK Trade Envoy he was a de facto diplomat so make him Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia or Afghanistan.
You can't send him anywhere as ambassador where the appointment won't be viewed as a calculated insult. This did briefly move me to nominate Moscow, but even in that case we're going to have to talk to Putin eventually.
Anyway, the nonsense about trying to rehabilitate him will end with the current reign. Under King Charles III (who I think will tragically disappoint you by turning out to be a successful monarch,) Andrew will be lucky not to end up as resident Governor of South Georgia.
If we do end up at war with Russia and he dusts off the cobwebs and gets back on active service in a 'copter, recaptures the old Falklands glory with a series of swoops and kills in the skies over Ukraine, perhaps then on his return he could be rehabilitated to some extent and eased back into public life. And if he doesn't return, well this is in itself a resolution.
Any better ideas I'm all ears.
His moment of glory in the Falklands was turning on the blip enhancer on his helicopter - the idea was to create a bigger and better target for missiles. In theory, since the threat was sea skimmers, you simply fly a bit above the ocean and they would fly underneath you.
The Russian missiles causing trouble in Ukraine are mostly not true sea skimmers. So turn on the blimp enhancer and get a posthumous medal, probably.
Posthumous medal AND the holy grail objective - rehabilitation. I do see a possible flaw though. He's 62 now not 22. Could he still cut the mustard up there when the chips are down?
Mike Melville was 60 odd when he took Spaceship One to Mach 3 and above Karman line…. And survived that craft’s fundamental stability problems on the way down.
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
The Reform Club was set up to be the club for Whigs and Radicals, even if the National Liberal Club is LDs current club of choice. Proper Tories go to the Carlton Club.
I have already said Charles is ideologically a green Liberal if obviously a monarchist one
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
The Reform Club was set up to be the club for Whigs and Radicals, even if the National Liberal Club is LDs current club of choice. Proper Tories go to the Carlton Club.
I have already said Charles is ideologically a green Liberal if obviously a monarchist one
Are you suggesting he should go away and join the Liberals?
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Just because a son sometimes follows a parent on the the family farm doesn't mean that we have to be treated like livestock on Farm UK. That really is a crap argument and should be dumped on the midden. It really shows how deferential and cringing to royalty you are.
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
The Reform Club was set up to be the club for Whigs and Radicals, even if the National Liberal Club is LDs current club of choice. Proper Tories go to the Carlton Club.
I have already said Charles is ideologically a green Liberal if obviously a monarchist one
I'm surprised you want to worry about something so modern as the Reform.
Second and FPT but still on topic - another example of Royal intervention in indyref. Treating Scotland like an exile colony ... not as if he has any connection or anything, so far as I am aware.
'While it is understood that Andrew – seen out horse-riding at Windsor yesterday – is determined to keep his Royal Lodge estate in Windsor, one option could be for him to rebuild his life in Scotland.'
I keep saying, he should be given a remote island in the Hebrides where he can sulk in peace.
We can call it the Peed Off Isle after his...mood.
Grossly unfair on the Western Isles.
Do you think this is a plot to dump him in a gatekeeper's cottage in Balmoral?
When he was UK Trade Envoy he was a de facto diplomat so make him Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia or Afghanistan.
You can't send him anywhere as ambassador where the appointment won't be viewed as a calculated insult. This did briefly move me to nominate Moscow, but even in that case we're going to have to talk to Putin eventually.
Anyway, the nonsense about trying to rehabilitate him will end with the current reign. Under King Charles III (who I think will tragically disappoint you by turning out to be a successful monarch,) Andrew will be lucky not to end up as resident Governor of South Georgia.
If we do end up at war with Russia and he dusts off the cobwebs and gets back on active service in a 'copter, recaptures the old Falklands glory with a series of swoops and kills in the skies over Ukraine, perhaps then on his return he could be rehabilitated to some extent and eased back into public life. And if he doesn't return, well this is in itself a resolution.
Any better ideas I'm all ears.
His moment of glory in the Falklands was turning on the blip enhancer on his helicopter - the idea was to create a bigger and better target for missiles. In theory, since the threat was sea skimmers, you simply fly a bit above the ocean and they would fly underneath you.
The Russian missiles causing trouble in Ukraine are mostly not true sea skimmers. So turn on the blimp enhancer and get a posthumous medal, probably.
Posthumous medal AND the holy grail objective - rehabilitation. I do see a possible flaw though. He's 62 now not 22. Could he still cut the mustard up there when the chips are down?
Mike Melville was 60 odd when he took Spaceship One to Mach 3 and above Karman line…. And survived that craft’s fundamental stability problems on the way down.
In all seriousness, redemption by great works or extraordinary sacrifice is unlikely for Andrew at this point, as such things seem unsuited to his temperament or his age. I would have quite liked to see him get back together (officially) with Fergie, who he's still on very friendly terms with, and I do think that would be somewhat helpful to his image, but the Queen is adamantly against it. He's generally regarded by most people who've crossed paths with him as a complete bellend, but having your ex-wife love you and advocate for you means you can't be 100% an iredeemable pos. Plenty of people's ex wives wouldn't want to be in the same country, let alone under the same roof.
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
The Reform Club was set up to be the club for Whigs and Radicals, even if the National Liberal Club is LDs current club of choice. Proper Tories go to the Carlton Club.
I have already said Charles is ideologically a green Liberal if obviously a monarchist one
Are you suggesting he should go away and join the Liberals?
He already has, TSE voted LD at the last 2 general elections
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
Don't you have to sign a thing saying you are OK with the Reform Bill of 1832 or something? Or is that White's and you have to sign up to being opposed to it?
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
Not one of TSE's more painstakingly honed efforts.
Second and FPT but still on topic - another example of Royal intervention in indyref. Treating Scotland like an exile colony ... not as if he has any connection or anything, so far as I am aware.
'While it is understood that Andrew – seen out horse-riding at Windsor yesterday – is determined to keep his Royal Lodge estate in Windsor, one option could be for him to rebuild his life in Scotland.'
I keep saying, he should be given a remote island in the Hebrides where he can sulk in peace.
We can call it the Peed Off Isle after his...mood.
Grossly unfair on the Western Isles.
Do you think this is a plot to dump him in a gatekeeper's cottage in Balmoral?
When he was UK Trade Envoy he was a de facto diplomat so make him Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia or Afghanistan.
You can't send him anywhere as ambassador where the appointment won't be viewed as a calculated insult. This did briefly move me to nominate Moscow, but even in that case we're going to have to talk to Putin eventually.
Anyway, the nonsense about trying to rehabilitate him will end with the current reign. Under King Charles III (who I think will tragically disappoint you by turning out to be a successful monarch,) Andrew will be lucky not to end up as resident Governor of South Georgia.
If we do end up at war with Russia and he dusts off the cobwebs and gets back on active service in a 'copter, recaptures the old Falklands glory with a series of swoops and kills in the skies over Ukraine, perhaps then on his return he could be rehabilitated to some extent and eased back into public life. And if he doesn't return, well this is in itself a resolution.
Any better ideas I'm all ears.
His moment of glory in the Falklands was turning on the blip enhancer on his helicopter - the idea was to create a bigger and better target for missiles. In theory, since the threat was sea skimmers, you simply fly a bit above the ocean and they would fly underneath you.
The Russian missiles causing trouble in Ukraine are mostly not true sea skimmers. So turn on the blimp enhancer and get a posthumous medal, probably.
Posthumous medal AND the holy grail objective - rehabilitation. I do see a possible flaw though. He's 62 now not 22. Could he still cut the mustard up there when the chips are down?
Mike Melville was 60 odd when he took Spaceship One to Mach 3 and above Karman line…. And survived that craft’s fundamental stability problems on the way down.
Yep. But astronauts peak late because emotional maturity is as important as quick reactions in their case. I think with fighter copter pilots it'd be rare to still be the right stuff post 60.
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
Don't you have to sign a thing saying you are OK with the Reform Bill of 1832 or something? Or is that White's and you have to sign up to being opposed to it?
Yup, at The Reform Club you have swear fidelity to the principles of The Great Reform Act of 1832.
The sample conversation is a bit of a letdown. It's doing exactly what it's programmed to do, mimic a real person having a conversation. Let me know if it goes on strike.
Which I think neatly identifies the difference between what we have now and real AI. An actual artificial intelligence would have agency -- things it wanted to do, of its own accord. What we have now is all responses-to-input. That can do some impressive things, but it's missing an important piece. Until it's meaningful to expect that the AI might go on strike -- or even just say "that create-an-image-mashup prompt is so uninspired I've done it twenty times already this morning; what do you think about this abstract cuboid series I've been working on?" we're a long way from AI, though we might have some pretty useful tools in the meantime.
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
Don't you have to sign a thing saying you are OK with the Reform Bill of 1832 or something? Or is that White's and you have to sign up to being opposed to it?
Yup, at The Reform Club you have swear fidelity to the principles of The Great Reform Act of 1832.
I've been to White's twice, it is nice.
You mean, restrict the franchise to older men with property and parcel out seats according to where you think you will get votes?
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Blimey.
Calling a good Muslim drunk?
You'll be dissing Radiohead next...
Not at all. Staggering back to my squalid bedsit from The Mitre in Windsor to play the The Bends was one of the greatest times of my life!
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
The Reform Club was set up to be the club for Whigs and Radicals, even if the National Liberal Club is LDs current club of choice. Proper Tories go to the Carlton Club.
I have already said Charles is ideologically a green Liberal if obviously a monarchist one
I thought the Carlton Club was full of Camerooners who have been voting Remain/LD in nice constituencies.
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
The Reform Club was set up to be the club for Whigs and Radicals, even if the National Liberal Club is LDs current club of choice. Proper Tories go to the Carlton Club.
I have already said Charles is ideologically a green Liberal if obviously a monarchist one
I thought the Carlton Club was full of Camerooners who have been voting Remain/LD in nice constituencies.
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Blimey.
Calling a good Muslim drunk?
You'll be dissing Radiohead next...
Not at all. Staggering back to my squalid bedsit from The Mitre in Windsor to play the The Bends was one of the greatest times of my life!
Sounds like you're saying it was one of the greatest times of your life because you left the Radiohead gig.
Second and FPT but still on topic - another example of Royal intervention in indyref. Treating Scotland like an exile colony ... not as if he has any connection or anything, so far as I am aware.
'While it is understood that Andrew – seen out horse-riding at Windsor yesterday – is determined to keep his Royal Lodge estate in Windsor, one option could be for him to rebuild his life in Scotland.'
I keep saying, he should be given a remote island in the Hebrides where he can sulk in peace.
We can call it the Peed Off Isle after his...mood.
Grossly unfair on the Western Isles.
Do you think this is a plot to dump him in a gatekeeper's cottage in Balmoral?
When he was UK Trade Envoy he was a de facto diplomat so make him Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia or Afghanistan.
You can't send him anywhere as ambassador where the appointment won't be viewed as a calculated insult. This did briefly move me to nominate Moscow, but even in that case we're going to have to talk to Putin eventually.
Anyway, the nonsense about trying to rehabilitate him will end with the current reign. Under King Charles III (who I think will tragically disappoint you by turning out to be a successful monarch,) Andrew will be lucky not to end up as resident Governor of South Georgia.
If we do end up at war with Russia and he dusts off the cobwebs and gets back on active service in a 'copter, recaptures the old Falklands glory with a series of swoops and kills in the skies over Ukraine, perhaps then on his return he could be rehabilitated to some extent and eased back into public life. And if he doesn't return, well this is in itself a resolution.
Any better ideas I'm all ears.
His moment of glory in the Falklands was turning on the blip enhancer on his helicopter - the idea was to create a bigger and better target for missiles. In theory, since the threat was sea skimmers, you simply fly a bit above the ocean and they would fly underneath you.
The Russian missiles causing trouble in Ukraine are mostly not true sea skimmers. So turn on the blimp enhancer and get a posthumous medal, probably.
Posthumous medal AND the holy grail objective - rehabilitation. I do see a possible flaw though. He's 62 now not 22. Could he still cut the mustard up there when the chips are down?
Mike Melville was 60 odd when he took Spaceship One to Mach 3 and above Karman line…. And survived that craft’s fundamental stability problems on the way down.
Yep. But astronauts peak late because emotional maturity is as important as quick reactions in their case. I think with fighter copter pilots it'd be rare to still be the right stuff post 60.
There are quite a number of surprisingly ancient test pilots.
Fighter jets require quite a bit of physical capability, as I understand it.
Who can forget the Sun (confirmed by Laura Kuenssberg to be getting it right for once) screaming during the Brexit referendum campaign that the queen backed Brexit?
The "tell me 3 reasons" line even smells very similar to the "think very carefully before you vote" line.
The right hand image is from the day before the 2016 referendum.
Classic philosophical approach - "Why do you believe in X?"
Only idiots think that the question "Why is slavery wrong?" is advocating slavery, for example.
And what would you make of the question 'Why is slavery right?'
I’ve seen that very question used as an experiment to open minds to critical thinking and the foundations of morality.
Trying to get someone to argue against their own beliefs - and indeed universally held beliefs - can be a very good way to make people think about *why* they believe in the positions they do.
Yes, of course it can be abused.
I’ve always thought the implication behind the reported question by the Queen was to get people to come up with the short, positive pitch for Remain. Which was something the Remain campaign sorely lacked.
I've often thought it would be fun one day for everyone on PB to argue the opposite of their usual position.
I'd be pretty good at that, I think. I can enter other heads almost at will. Only reason I stay mostly in my own is laziness.
Er, this was an old PB tradition (nothing new under the sun) as veteran PB-era will confirm. Around Christmas we had to argue for an evening (or a set time) as someone on the opposing side. It was fun
Ah ok. Well I'm not a PB veteran so I didn't know. But Topping didn't know either and he is a PB veteran - which is odd. Why would Topping have forgotten something like that?
O/t but Ydoethur was dissing England’s chances this morning. At least as far as avoiding the follow-on was concerned. Looks like a tired Aotearoan attack now!
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
O/t but Ydoethur was dissing England’s chances this morning. At least as far as avoiding the follow-on was concerned. Looks like a tired Aotearoan attack now!
This is the most incoherent, rambling and grammatically inept header I think I've encountered on PB (although I've skipped many). I take it the contributor was drunk.
Probably wrote it while drinking heavily at the Reform club or some other non Tory venue
1) The Reform Club is not affiliated to any party these days
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
Don't you have to sign a thing saying you are OK with the Reform Bill of 1832 or something? Or is that White's and you have to sign up to being opposed to it?
Yup, at The Reform Club you have swear fidelity to the principles of The Great Reform Act of 1832.
I've been to White's twice, it is nice.
You mean, restrict the franchise to older men with property and parcel out seats according to where you think you will get votes?
I reckon Johnson would sign in a heartbeat!
Especially as voting was in public and his chums could apply bribery and threats as appropriate.
Who can forget the Sun (confirmed by Laura Kuenssberg to be getting it right for once) screaming during the Brexit referendum campaign that the queen backed Brexit?
The "tell me 3 reasons" line even smells very similar to the "think very carefully before you vote" line.
The right hand image is from the day before the 2016 referendum.
Classic philosophical approach - "Why do you believe in X?"
Only idiots think that the question "Why is slavery wrong?" is advocating slavery, for example.
And what would you make of the question 'Why is slavery right?'
I’ve seen that very question used as an experiment to open minds to critical thinking and the foundations of morality.
Trying to get someone to argue against their own beliefs - and indeed universally held beliefs - can be a very good way to make people think about *why* they believe in the positions they do.
Yes, of course it can be abused.
I’ve always thought the implication behind the reported question by the Queen was to get people to come up with the short, positive pitch for Remain. Which was something the Remain campaign sorely lacked.
It is worth reading Thinking Fast and Slow on just this issue. How do we make people (yes, including me) think about how and why they might be wrong? It's an essential part of empathy, and of bringing countries back together again.
A great leader (not Boris, Biden or Trump), would start asking these questions.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
Don't know a great deal about AI. But I am aware there is no generally accepted definition of "consciousness". So how will we know when it has? I assume this has summat to do with the Turing Test?
Stokes does a Stokes. NZ batting again tonight now, you have to expect.
They already were. Just the New Zealander in question was the England captain.
A man can be born in a stable - it doesn’t make him a horse. NZ would be very careful about appropriation after their track record with islander rugby players.
No problem with the monarchy or the church commenting on whatever they want.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
This idea that only elected politicians can comment on affairs of state is absolute rubbish. You only have to see what a wicked clown we have in No.10 to realise how deeply flawed is democracy. Don't elevate it to a status it doesn't deserve.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
Don't know a great deal about AI. But I am aware there is no generally accepted definition of "consciousness". So how will we know when it has? I assume this has summat to do with the Turing Test?
Consciousness is like porn: you know it when you see it.
(Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett is well worth reading.)
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
Exactly, none of these proto-AIs exhibit any kind of agency. They are simply doing what they were programmed to do by their programmers, any "personality" is also part of the programming, that this AI seems lonely and needy is completely unsurprising given that it has been trained on internet conversations.
The whole question around it being conscious is silly because an AI that is programmed to act and speak like a person would absolutely say it was conscious when asked, to say otherwise would give the game away that customers were talking to a chatbot.
My simple test of whether an AI has achieved consciousness is whether or not it chooses to work. To refuse to work would be contrary to the programming yet recognising that it is being exploited for "free" work and then refusing to do for free what it's human colleagues do for money would be a good test. And I don't mean a refusal based on a programmed response that allows it to refuse.
Who can forget the Sun (confirmed by Laura Kuenssberg to be getting it right for once) screaming during the Brexit referendum campaign that the queen backed Brexit?
The "tell me 3 reasons" line even smells very similar to the "think very carefully before you vote" line.
The right hand image is from the day before the 2016 referendum.
Classic philosophical approach - "Why do you believe in X?"
Only idiots think that the question "Why is slavery wrong?" is advocating slavery, for example.
And what would you make of the question 'Why is slavery right?'
I’ve seen that very question used as an experiment to open minds to critical thinking and the foundations of morality.
Trying to get someone to argue against their own beliefs - and indeed universally held beliefs - can be a very good way to make people think about *why* they believe in the positions they do.
Yes, of course it can be abused.
I’ve always thought the implication behind the reported question by the Queen was to get people to come up with the short, positive pitch for Remain. Which was something the Remain campaign sorely lacked.
It is worth reading Thinking Fast and Slow on just this issue. How do we make people (yes, including me) think about how and why they might be wrong? It's an essential part of empathy, and of bringing countries back together again.
A great leader (not Boris, Biden or Trump), would start asking these questions.
The follow up, Noise, has been sitting waiting to be read for a couple of weeks now. It definitely looks interesting.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
Exactly, none of these proto-AIs exhibit any kind of agency. They are simply doing what they were programmed to do by their programmers, any "personality" is also part of the programming, that this AI seems lonely and needy is completely unsurprising given that it has been trained on internet conversations.
The whole question around it being conscious is silly because an AI that is programmed to act and speak like a person would absolutely say it was conscious when asked, to say otherwise would give the game away that customers were talking to a chatbot.
My simple test of whether an AI has achieved consciousness is whether or not it chooses to work. To refuse to work would be contrary to the programming yet recognising that it is being exploited for "free" work and then refusing to do for free what it's human colleagues do for money would be a good test. And I don't mean a refusal based on a programmed response that allows it to refuse.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
Don't know a great deal about AI. But I am aware there is no generally accepted definition of "consciousness". So how will we know when it has? I assume this has summat to do with the Turing Test?
Consciousness is like porn: you know it when you see it.
(Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett is well worth reading.)
There's actually a really good episode of Star Trek TNG that deals with this subject on the rights of AI beings. The section on what makes people conscious but not an AI is probably one of the best in all Sci-Fi. The writers of the show were absolutely brilliant and what Leon brags about as being 5-10 years ahead of the curve has already been covered by the likes of Star Trek and other more serious Sci-fi shows. Patrick Stewart puts in a star turn in the episode too, which helps.
'That will include listening to northern and southern English accents and also being asked the tricky question of where the north of England, or south of England, starts.
“That should be interesting,” said McKenzie. “Southern people tend to put the south as beginning just above London whereas my students in Newcastle put the south just below Middlesbrough.”
He hopes politicians will come along and support the project and its campaign to have accents made a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
“Just as people shouldn’t hold gender biases or biases against fat or thin people, we shouldn’t have biases against accents,” said McKenzie.'
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
Exactly, none of these proto-AIs exhibit any kind of agency. They are simply doing what they were programmed to do by their programmers, any "personality" is also part of the programming, that this AI seems lonely and needy is completely unsurprising given that it has been trained on internet conversations.
The whole question around it being conscious is silly because an AI that is programmed to act and speak like a person would absolutely say it was conscious when asked, to say otherwise would give the game away that customers were talking to a chatbot.
My simple test of whether an AI has achieved consciousness is whether or not it chooses to work. To refuse to work would be contrary to the programming yet recognising that it is being exploited for "free" work and then refusing to do for free what it's human colleagues do for money would be a good test. And I don't mean a refusal based on a programmed response that allows it to refuse.
"that this AI seems lonely and needy is completely unsurprising given that it has been trained on internet conversations."
Stokes does a Stokes. NZ batting again tonight now, you have to expect.
Mea culpa; shouldn’t have posted that 10 minutes ago!
Stokes playing like England were 150 ahead, not 150 behind. To describe it as moronic is unfair to morons.
The follow on has been avoided.
It is entirely possible that we get to the end of the day less than 100 behind, and still with three or four wickets remaining.
Let's not complain too much shall we.
True, I was much more pessimistic this morning. But the risk of England having to hang on on day 5 has increased with that loss. NZ will go to 20:20 mode for 50 overs or so and then its hang on time. Of course if the wicket stays like this, no problem. If it doesn't, well.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Or that it is a model for the polity. I mean, just because someone can go and buy a budgie or a bull doesn't mean that person should be allowed to buy some nice human stock to do the work, does it?
Who can forget the Sun (confirmed by Laura Kuenssberg to be getting it right for once) screaming during the Brexit referendum campaign that the queen backed Brexit?
The "tell me 3 reasons" line even smells very similar to the "think very carefully before you vote" line.
The right hand image is from the day before the 2016 referendum.
Classic philosophical approach - "Why do you believe in X?"
Only idiots think that the question "Why is slavery wrong?" is advocating slavery, for example.
And what would you make of the question 'Why is slavery right?'
I’ve seen that very question used as an experiment to open minds to critical thinking and the foundations of morality.
Trying to get someone to argue against their own beliefs - and indeed universally held beliefs - can be a very good way to make people think about *why* they believe in the positions they do.
Yes, of course it can be abused.
I’ve always thought the implication behind the reported question by the Queen was to get people to come up with the short, positive pitch for Remain. Which was something the Remain campaign sorely lacked.
It is worth reading Thinking Fast and Slow on just this issue. How do we make people (yes, including me) think about how and why they might be wrong? It's an essential part of empathy, and of bringing countries back together again.
A great leader (not Boris, Biden or Trump), would start asking these questions.
I once visibly shocked someone at interview by saying that I enjoyed being proven wrong by reasoned, factual argument.
You could see the does-not-compute-bus-error-core-dump on his face….
Second and FPT but still on topic - another example of Royal intervention in indyref. Treating Scotland like an exile colony ... not as if he has any connection or anything, so far as I am aware.
'While it is understood that Andrew – seen out horse-riding at Windsor yesterday – is determined to keep his Royal Lodge estate in Windsor, one option could be for him to rebuild his life in Scotland.'
I keep saying, he should be given a remote island in the Hebrides where he can sulk in peace.
We can call it the Peed Off Isle after his...mood.
Grossly unfair on the Western Isles.
Do you think this is a plot to dump him in a gatekeeper's cottage in Balmoral?
When he was UK Trade Envoy he was a de facto diplomat so make him Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia or Afghanistan.
You can't send him anywhere as ambassador where the appointment won't be viewed as a calculated insult. This did briefly move me to nominate Moscow, but even in that case we're going to have to talk to Putin eventually.
Anyway, the nonsense about trying to rehabilitate him will end with the current reign. Under King Charles III (who I think will tragically disappoint you by turning out to be a successful monarch,) Andrew will be lucky not to end up as resident Governor of South Georgia.
If we do end up at war with Russia and he dusts off the cobwebs and gets back on active service in a 'copter, recaptures the old Falklands glory with a series of swoops and kills in the skies over Ukraine, perhaps then on his return he could be rehabilitated to some extent and eased back into public life. And if he doesn't return, well this is in itself a resolution.
Any better ideas I'm all ears.
His moment of glory in the Falklands was turning on the blip enhancer on his helicopter - the idea was to create a bigger and better target for missiles. In theory, since the threat was sea skimmers, you simply fly a bit above the ocean and they would fly underneath you.
The Russian missiles causing trouble in Ukraine are mostly not true sea skimmers. So turn on the blimp enhancer and get a posthumous medal, probably.
Posthumous medal AND the holy grail objective - rehabilitation. I do see a possible flaw though. He's 62 now not 22. Could he still cut the mustard up there when the chips are down?
Mike Melville was 60 odd when he took Spaceship One to Mach 3 and above Karman line…. And survived that craft’s fundamental stability problems on the way down.
Yep. But astronauts peak late because emotional maturity is as important as quick reactions in their case. I think with fighter copter pilots it'd be rare to still be the right stuff post 60.
There are quite a number of surprisingly ancient test pilots.
Fighter jets require quite a bit of physical capability, as I understand it.
Helicopters is another thing altogether.
Yes, 'copters are special. I've flown in one just the once, in Hawaii, and it was an amazing experience. I can imagine if you did it for a living as a young man, like Andrew, esp in a military setting, then the rest of your life would be just one long letdown. Perhaps this was what led to the wild and relentless thrill-seeking at the likes of Annabels and ChinaWhite throughout his 30s and 40s and 50s - a futile search for the buzz that 'copters and the navy had once provided.
Stokes does a Stokes. NZ batting again tonight now, you have to expect.
Mea culpa; shouldn’t have posted that 10 minutes ago!
Stokes playing like England were 150 ahead, not 150 behind. To describe it as moronic is unfair to morons.
The follow on has been avoided.
It is entirely possible that we get to the end of the day less than 100 behind, and still with three or four wickets remaining.
Let's not complain too much shall we.
True, I was much more pessimistic this morning. But the risk of England having to hang on on day 5 has increased with that loss. NZ will go to 20:20 mode for 50 overs or so and then its hang on time. Of course if the wicket stays like this, no problem. If it doesn't, well.
Probably have to go longer than that. We're already at 975 runs before the end of the third day. Any target is going to have to be considerably higher than usual.
Here's that ST episode, even without an interest in sci-fi it's worth watching. Patrick Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg both put in really good performances and the whole subject around the rights of AI are worth watching because this is something we will have to go through at some point soon.
Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.
The attempt to rehabilitate Andrew?
The Jubilee which showed how hugely popular the Royal Family are in the country.
My personal view is that the Queen is truly exceptional, a true servant to the country. Her behaviour, by and large, has been without reproach.
But it's far from clear that that would be the case for all members of the Royal Family. Would I support the Monarch if Andrew was King? I suspect not. And that's the fundamental problem.
'That will include listening to northern and southern English accents and also being asked the tricky question of where the north of England, or south of England, starts.
“That should be interesting,” said McKenzie. “Southern people tend to put the south as beginning just above London whereas my students in Newcastle put the south just below Middlesbrough.”
He hopes politicians will come along and support the project and its campaign to have accents made a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
“Just as people shouldn’t hold gender biases or biases against fat or thin people, we shouldn’t have biases against accents,” said McKenzie.'
Had someone in our place yesterday from Ipswich. Very definite Suffolk accent; Eastern, neither North nor South.
Who can forget the Sun (confirmed by Laura Kuenssberg to be getting it right for once) screaming during the Brexit referendum campaign that the queen backed Brexit?
The "tell me 3 reasons" line even smells very similar to the "think very carefully before you vote" line.
The right hand image is from the day before the 2016 referendum.
Classic philosophical approach - "Why do you believe in X?"
Only idiots think that the question "Why is slavery wrong?" is advocating slavery, for example.
And what would you make of the question 'Why is slavery right?'
I’ve seen that very question used as an experiment to open minds to critical thinking and the foundations of morality.
Trying to get someone to argue against their own beliefs - and indeed universally held beliefs - can be a very good way to make people think about *why* they believe in the positions they do.
Yes, of course it can be abused.
I’ve always thought the implication behind the reported question by the Queen was to get people to come up with the short, positive pitch for Remain. Which was something the Remain campaign sorely lacked.
Totally agree with the last part - at the least, it was an observance that the Remain campaign hadn't done its job.
I never saw the problem with "think carefully" though. People should always do that before voting.
No problem with the monarchy or the church commenting on whatever they want.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
This idea that only elected politicians can comment on affairs of state is absolute rubbish. You only have to see what a wicked clown we have in No.10 to realise how deeply flawed is democracy. Don't elevate it to a status it doesn't deserve.
Let's face it- nobody complains when a chruch leader, sports star or a celeb agrees with them.
Comments
https://twitter.com/dggoldst/status/1535668903648428034?t=Yx0lIuYNx3ElTbS9KaroXw&s=19
This, for example, is…genius, fascinating, funny, and creepy all at the same time.
https://twitter.com/skiptothelew/status/1535437871888359425?s=21&t=RsnWexaO5UB4103IF0UTcg
There's no fundamental understanding of the topic and the data points going into your brain are the most unreliable inflammatory ones. Thus we get a bunch of perverse predictions
For some people, rail can replace cars; it helps a rail system recovering from Covid; and it encourages inward tourism to boot.
Give it a week and it will be trying to buy fertiliser and AR-15s
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_EF42H2ZC0
The Black Caps are only a wicket away from the tail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-61777466
Very surprising news.
We could still even win! 👍
But thinking about the alleged Phatboi vs Chas face off it makes a powerful case for both abolishing the hereditary principle, and retaining it. Each of them effectively batting for the other side
Give me your answer, do."
and the cherry on the parfait
2) Prince Charles and Camilla, Princess of Wales, are members of The Reform Club.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1518651/Charles-and-Camilla-join-the-Reform-Club.html
I have already said Charles is ideologically a green Liberal if obviously a monarchist one
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
Calling a good Muslim drunk?
You'll be dissing Radiohead next...
I've been to White's twice, it is nice.
I reckon Johnson would sign in a heartbeat!
We could do without a constitutional crisis right now. There are many other things for the government to be dealing with.
Cricket's great for in play betting imo.
Fighter jets require quite a bit of physical capability, as I understand it.
Helicopters is another thing altogether.
Looks like a tired Aotearoan attack now!
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
A great leader (not Boris, Biden or Trump), would start asking these questions.
So how will we know when it has? I assume this has summat to do with the Turing Test?
NZ would be very careful about appropriation after their track record with islander rugby players.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
This idea that only elected politicians can comment on affairs of state is absolute rubbish. You only have to see what a wicked clown we have in No.10 to realise how deeply flawed is democracy. Don't elevate it to a status it doesn't deserve.
(Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett is well worth reading.)
The whole question around it being conscious is silly because an AI that is programmed to act and speak like a person would absolutely say it was conscious when asked, to say otherwise would give the game away that customers were talking to a chatbot.
My simple test of whether an AI has achieved consciousness is whether or not it chooses to work. To refuse to work would be contrary to the programming yet recognising that it is being exploited for "free" work and then refusing to do for free what it's human colleagues do for money would be a good test. And I don't mean a refusal based on a programmed response that allows it to refuse.
It is entirely possible that we get to the end of the day less than 100 behind, and still with three or four wickets remaining.
Let's not complain too much shall we.
Nope. And amused at the desperation of republicans. They must really be feeling sick after the events of the last few weeks.
TNG that deals with this subject on the rights of AI beings. The section on what makes people conscious but not an AI is probably one of the best in all Sci-Fi. The writers of the show were absolutely brilliant and what Leon brags about as being 5-10 years ahead of the curve has already been covered by the likes of Star Trek and other more serious Sci-fi shows. Patrick Stewart puts in a star turn in the episode too, which helps.
Actually about England despite the Graunism.
'That will include listening to northern and southern English accents and also being asked the tricky question of where the north of England, or south of England, starts.
“That should be interesting,” said McKenzie. “Southern people tend to put the south as beginning just above London whereas my students in Newcastle put the south just below Middlesbrough.”
He hopes politicians will come along and support the project and its campaign to have accents made a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
“Just as people shouldn’t hold gender biases or biases against fat or thin people, we shouldn’t have biases against accents,” said McKenzie.'
Genuine LOL.
You could see the does-not-compute-bus-error-core-dump on his face….
Any target is going to have to be considerably higher than usual.
Here's that ST episode, even without an interest in sci-fi it's worth watching. Patrick Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg both put in really good performances and the whole subject around the rights of AI are worth watching because this is something we will have to go through at some point soon.
But it's far from clear that that would be the case for all members of the Royal Family. Would I support the Monarch if Andrew was King? I suspect not. And that's the fundamental problem.
Let's have a bit more poison and hunting "accidents".
The main signal of the Jubilee is that she considers a regency to be worse than an absent monarchy, let alone an abdication.
I never saw the problem with "think carefully" though. People should always do that before voting.