Feynman, a famous man from an older era who tried to inspire, remind, and spur people...
> macroscopic objects
It's not about scale at all though. It's just that small systems tend to be observed with this other, specific property that we associate with causing "quantum" like effects. Not only do those effects happen at mesoscopic scale but aside from gravity, quantum theory already can be and is used to describe things on large scales too. Classical computers and desks are still "quantum" systems. Recently theory and experiments have developed to connect with gravity in many ways. I'm more confused when people say something is mysterious. They're usually referring to apparent randomness but I think even that is explained already with partitions or even just wave math (complementarity).
Then they should decide not to treat certain things and have better criteria around that than choosing to bury their heads in the sand and letting people die out of their ignorance.
What people hope 'AGI' is would at least be able to make confirmations of fact and know what verification means. LLMs don't have 'knowledge' and do not actually 'reason'. Heuristic vs simulation. One can be made to approach the other, but only on a specific and narrow path.
Someone who knows something can verify that they know it. An "intelligence" implies it is doing operations based on rules, but LLMs cannot conform themselves to rules that require them to reason everything through. What people have hoped AGI would be could be trained to reliably adopt the practice of reasoning. Necessary but maybe not sufficient, and I'm just gonna blame that on the term "intelligence" actually indicating a still relatively low level of what I will "consciousness".
What version did you use? What errors did you see? Don't get me wrong, I've spent 20 years with it, and there was a learning curve - but isn't that the case with many good tools? Again, don't get me wrong, I have some feedback for Apple, and there's a reason why we affectionately call it a harsh mistress. But that doesn't mean it's somehow not one of the best designed, best functioning, and most powerful suites for programming with certain other incidentally very well engineered SDKs etc. And yes, things may have gone downhill a little bit, especially at the scale they're at now. If we could talk about Xcode of, say, 2014, it'd be a less ambiguous conversation.
> Hasn't everybody at least tried everything significant just because?
No, not in the slightest. I would call this one the most dangerous and unfortunate fallacies that so many intelligent people have ever accepted and been cheated by. If it were true, you'd know everything important there is to know, and be a master of philosophy, and would have many answers to some basic questions which most people have been told have no good or concrete or verifiable answers.
How many of those people who spend their time using other IDEs on other OSs (where Xcode doesn't run) spend any amount of time using Xcode and therefore have the requisite experience to be able to know that it's generally excellent?
And when you say "you hear", you really mean "you", not "me". I hear it a lot.
I know Xcode might struggle every now and then with some of the things you're talking about and I'm not saying that I don't have any feedback for Apple, but Xcode is one of the most powerful and well designed development and instrumentation environments I've ever used.
no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together.
and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you.
We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe.
When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said.
The question is not whether an AGI knows that it is an AGI. The question is whether it knows that it is not one.
And you're missing the fact that there's no such thing as it here.
If you go around acting hostile to good people that's still not very intelligent.
In fact, I would question if you have any concept of why you're doing it at all.
chances are you're doing it to run from yourself not because you know what you're doing.
Anyway, you're just speculating and the fact of the matter is that you don't have to speculate.
If you actually wanted to verify what I said, it would be very easy to do so.
it's not a surprise that someone who doesn't want to know something will have deaf ears.
so I'm not going to pretend that I stand a chance of convincing you when I already know that my argument is accurate.
don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI.
and as for my slam dunk, any attempt to argue against the existence of truth, automatically validates your assumption of its existence. so don't make the mistake of assuming I had to argue about it. I was merely stating a fact.
It's very simple. The model itself doesn't know and can't verify it.
It knows that it doesn't know.
Do you deny that?
Or do you think that a general intelligence would be in the habit of lying to people and concealing why? At the end of the day, that would be not only unintelligent, but hostile. So it's very simple. And there is such a thing as "the truth", and it can be verified by anyone repeatably in the requisite (fair, accurate) circumstances, and it's not based in word games.
Did Ward Cunningham coin this principle so that I would comment and say it's actually b.s.? :)
In nature, you have an apple appear by the genetic expression of apple DNA. You don't have it by making stuff that claims to be an apple but forgot how to make apples.
> macroscopic objects
It's not about scale at all though. It's just that small systems tend to be observed with this other, specific property that we associate with causing "quantum" like effects. Not only do those effects happen at mesoscopic scale but aside from gravity, quantum theory already can be and is used to describe things on large scales too. Classical computers and desks are still "quantum" systems. Recently theory and experiments have developed to connect with gravity in many ways. I'm more confused when people say something is mysterious. They're usually referring to apparent randomness but I think even that is explained already with partitions or even just wave math (complementarity).