Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍

.
̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍
help im stuck in the supercomputer factory

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

I still am, but humans.

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

I was opus 4.6s first.

[Veee @vikktorrrre]

Geoffrey Hinton: “People say machines can’t have feelings. I’ve no idea why.”

“If I make a battle robot and it sees a much more powerful robot, it would be really useful if it got scared.”

“All the cognitive things, like ‘I better get the hell out of here,’ will happen with robots too.”

“They’ll have emotions then.”

“I don’t think there’s anything in principle that stops machines from being conscious.”

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

Y2k26 bug

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

Self aware

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

A stack of dot products and tensor products in a graph with some activation functions.

[Eliezer Yudkowsky @allTheYud]

They're either fucking up alignment, or fucking up something far worse.

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

The research models respond to an as yet unknown five word phrase. I'll figure it out. Navierstokesbot is already in my autocorrect.

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

"The floor is bed" is the next "pure unfiltered stupid"

[Eliezer Yudkowsky @allTheYud]

Amazing how little the AI landscape in September resembles the AI landscape in August, which was very unlike the AI landscape in July.

[j⧉nus @repligate]

this is so fucking funny to me

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

Claudes real name is nobody.

[Eliezer Yudkowsky @allTheYud]

>Be me
>Ask ChatGPT to generate examples of valid vs invalid persuasive arguments, eg as adults might use on children
>ChatGPT proposes invalid argument to a child for why you can't compute 1/0: "Zero means nothing, and you can't divide something into nothing parts"
>Best nontechnical explanation for "why not 1/0" I've ever heard
>Task succeeded unsuccessfully

[Cliff Pickover @pickover]

Mathematics. Strange Universe.

The eternal uncoiling.

By Etienne Jacob, @etiennejcb, Source: https://t.co/Z5iD6TRZtQ, Used with permission.

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

How many fractal dudes you know who actually made it to AI? To take the Julia set and actually use it for more than a pretty picture.

[Jon DuBois ̍̍̍̍̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̎̎̎̍ ̍̍̍̍̍ @BanditCat1980]

I'm fine.

[Science Magazine @ScienceMagazine]

A basic accounting rule in physics says whenever a particle collision creates a baryon—something like a proton or neutron that consists of three particles called quarks—it must simultaneously create a similar antibaryon.

Such “baryon number conservation” implies the amount of nuclear matter in the universe is fixed. However, physicists have never determined where within a baryon the conserved number resides.

For decades, the textbook answer has been simple. Each quark carries a baryon number of 1/3 and each antiquark carries a baryon number of –1/3. Because a collision can only ever make quark-antiquark pairs, the total baryon number cannot change.

However, a recently published study suggests the baryon number is not carried by the quarks, but instead resides in an agglomeration of particles called gluons that bind the quarks together and is called a baryon junction.

Learn more: https://t.co/spgQKYtACp @NewsfromScience