Yeah, and to be clear I’m unabashedly a humanist myself, but at this point in time I have to treat “Humanist” in org names as a red flag.

Like, in other words, I don’t think most mathematicians are particularly interested in building huge datacenters to brute-force compute quintillions of decimals of pi under current algorithms? Because the point is understanding, not mere knowledge? I dunno!

I’m not at all a mathematician and mostly bad at understanding things, but, is an unwieldy proof that’s barely comprehensible and might be relying on multiple layers of bugs and traps and whatever undefined edges of formal proof systems even a proof at all? Does it actually merit consideration outside of pure spite (understandable)?

poo poo pee pee gang

I mean, fair enough, but can you explain how that impacts your decisions? What does panpsychism imply in matters of ethics or epistemology? Does it matter that the air you breathe can be thought of as in some way conscious?

Is the Pope Catholic? If ever in doubt ask him about abortion and gay marriage.

cool graph what's the x axis

Malcolm and Simone Collins with their children – Octavian George, four, Torsten Savage, two, and Titan Invictus, one – at home in Pennsylvania.

bye

What I find delightful about this is that I already wasn't impressed! Because, as the paper goes on to say

Moreover, although the UBE is a closed-book exam for humans, GPT-4’s huge training corpus largely distilled in its parameters means that it can effectively take the UBE “open-book”

And here I was thinking it not getting a perfect score on multiple-choice questions was already damning. But apparently it doesn't even get a particularly good score!

From Re-evaluating GPT-4’s bar exam performance (linked in the article):

First, although GPT-4’s UBE score nears the 90th percentile when examining approximate conversions from February administrations of the Illinois Bar Exam, these estimates are heavily skewed towards repeat test-takers who failed the July administration and score significantly lower than the general test-taking population.

Ohhh, that is sneaky!

I love the way these idiots keep incrementing the number on their ChatGPT fantasy as if it's a sufficient image of the future and it's going to get everyone on board. Complete failure of imagination, don't try to picture any actual use for it or anything, just make it... more.

Oh well done, you added noise to a line going up!