If this situation is considered "proof" of that, then I'd hate to hear about how democracy can only function with Communist support (China), and how it would have failed in the 70's without being propped up by dictatorships (Saudi Arabia). Or perhaps there's a bit more nuance to geopolitics than will fit into a single tweet.
They are as close as it gets- the "economic calculation problem" makes an actual centrally planned communist economy impossible, hence the mass famines. Cuba also in practice has a free market capitalist economy nowadays. From what I've heard, in practice North Korea also feeds people through a capitalist black market.
Thats falls under the "doesn't have enough ram to be anything else" bit. Yes, they have a keyboard, but how am I going to run emacs+rust-analyzer or emacs+latex in what remains of the 2GB of ram after the OS takes its slice?
haha that is a good point. I could set up a development VM on my 1U and use this as a dumb terminal. That actually could be a pretty good set up and could easily fit in the ram constraints. Now I'm back to being on the fence.
How do you compete with free? Unless you're running a charity, you have to make money somehow eventually. That's there are no mainstream paid competitors to Facebook says (investors believe) theres not a large intersection of users who care about privacy and customers willing to pay a sustainable fee to run such a service. So we're left with Facebook/similar, or hosting open source clones.
You cannot compete with free, unless their experience is so bad that people are willing to throw money at the problem to have it be better. Most of the time, that isn't the case. 'Facebook that values your privacy' is not a value proposition that most people care to pay money for.
'Photoshop but [cheaper, free-with-ads, without an Adobe subscription]' is an area where people have successfully built businesses, however.
The problem is that we are making life harder and harder for people to do things for free, due to the privatization of everything. With more commons, people are more likely to create high-quality things for free.
You'll still run into trouble with anything wanting to allow everything but trying to do NAT. I'd hazard to guess this actually still uses UDP under the covers for that reason (but haven't bothered to verify). QUIC and HTTP/3 went that route for the same reason.
If we open up a human skull, what would we find? A clump of grey matter, a wet piece of meat. As we dissect it further and zoomed in, what would we find? Neurons. Zoom in futher and we get a mess of chemicals. As we look at the pile of cells that make up the brain, we have the same fundamental question: where's the part that understands?
Yet somehow, from the connections of all of those cells, and neurotransmitters, there's consciousness and something there that does understand (and think and reason and love). If, instead of LLM architecture, on more powerful computers than we have now, we simulated all of those neurons and their connections, would we have a computer that understands? If we then did those computations on scratch paper, where would the piece that understands be on that piece of paper?
The sum of a thing's parts can be greater than the individual parts. Whether or not ChatGPT understands is a whole big question, but we'll have no more luck dissecting LLMs to find out if it does than if we dissected a human brain.
You can simulate a brain to some degree, maybe, but you won’t get the whole thing short of just… using an actual brain, that is physically identical to the one you’re simulating, down to at least the quantum level (and who knows what else?). It’s not at all certain that this can be reduced to math.
The calculations for operating an LLM definitely can be reduced to math. No reduction needed, in fact—they are math.
This isn’t an argument (to my mind, anyway) against even the possibility of machine whatever-you-like (consciousness, understanding, whatever) but against the idea of equivalence because we could simulate either one—in fact, we can’t simulate one. The other, essentially is already simulation, no further steps needed.
What you’re getting at (if I may attempt to present your argument) is that we could reduce either to its components and make it look ridiculous that it might be doing anything particularly advanced.
However, in fact we definitely can reproduce exactly what one of them does with a bunch of thick books of lookup tables and some formulas that we could mechanically follow by hand, and it might even be possible to do so in practice, not just hypothetically (at significant, but not impossible, expense) while we do not know we can do that for a human brain, short of just using exactly the brain that we want to “simulate”.
> "It’s not at all certain that this can be reduced to math."
It isn't certain that it can be, but can you give any plausible reason why the Universe might allow understanding to (meat + electric patterns) and deny it to (silicon + electric patterns) ?
reply