This doesn’t seem like a great way to reason about the predictions.
For something like this, saying “There is no evidence showing it” is a good enough refutation.
Counterpointing that “Well, there could be a lot of this going on, but it is in secret.” - that could be a justification for any kooky theory out there. Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts. Maybe AI has already replaced all of us and we’re Cylons. Something we couldn’t know.
The predictions are specific enough that they are falsifiable, so they should stand or fall based on the clear material evidence supporting or contradicting them.
> Resolution will be via a poll of Manifold moderators. If they're split on the issue, with anywhere from 30% to 70% YES votes, it'll resolve to the proportion of YES votes.
So you should really read it as “Will >30% of Manifold moderators in 2027 think the ‘predictions seem to have been roughly correct up until that point’?”
Do accredited investor regulations not apply to this market? Is the crypto token a registered security since it apparently represents stock in a company?
I’m turned off because it sounds like the company wants to play fast and loose with money in a way that is more than just “move fast and break things”.
There are ignorant people everywhere. There are brilliant people everywhere.
Governments should be criticized when they do bad things. In America, you can talk openly about things you don’t like that the government has done. In China, you can’t. I know which one I’d rather live in.
Sure, that’s essentially what a person would do. Describing that process says nothing about what an LLM does, which we know by definition of the system is applying a set of weights to a text string input.
If you want to reduce all reasoning to just math, then LLMs reason. But then saying something like the OP of “we’ve made computers that reason” is not very novel or useful. Under that framework, computers always reasoned.
The explanation without is that the LLM takes the prompt text, applies a math formula to produce the next token, iterates that function to get a set of tokens, and returns the response. Where is there reasoning?
If that is sufficient for reasoning, is my calculator reasoning when I input 2+2 and it returns 4?
Yeah, I agree! Knowing how people respond, I thought it was useful to add the full context of the breadth and depth of the author’s writing. Already there’s people pulling single line quotes to dismiss. But, that’s pretty typical of the internet.
Important context, this appears to be a brief intro+table of contents for a 165-page pdf/html book.[0]
It’ll probably be easy for HN to take potshots at snippets of the intro, but the writing intrigued me enough that I want to at least skim over the whole thing.
“Aware of” does not necessarily mean “capable of dealing with”. Forensics is generally bad science, yet gets admitted into court all the time. This occurs despite many legal textbooks, papers, and court opinions highlighting the deficiencies.
For something like this, saying “There is no evidence showing it” is a good enough refutation.
Counterpointing that “Well, there could be a lot of this going on, but it is in secret.” - that could be a justification for any kooky theory out there. Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts. Maybe AI has already replaced all of us and we’re Cylons. Something we couldn’t know.
The predictions are specific enough that they are falsifiable, so they should stand or fall based on the clear material evidence supporting or contradicting them.