Maybe the real underlying distribution IS a lot of text from people just spewing out feel good words for socialising. I think that might be side effect of the fact that meaningful text is harder to make even for humans, so there is smaller quantity of meaningful text.

Revisionist at best.

Sure some people could write well but didn't have a clue but they failed to maintain interest since once you realized the author was no good you bounced once you saw their styled blog.

Now they don't care as they only want the one view and likely won't even bother with more posts at the same site.

Exposed, and also dominating the majority of text being “written” every day. Would we say they invented the scaling and spread potential of slop?

Not nearly self-aware enough, if you were to go around saying such things to people in person. What a shocking insult, to tell someone their very voice sounds unhuman! I can't say you should never, of course, but I would hope very much you reserve such calumny only for when it has been thoroughly earned.

But of course this is only a website, where there are in any case no drinks of any sort to go flying for any reason, and where such an ill-considered thing to say can receive a more reasoned response like this, instead.

Oh, good grief. Flag my comment, then. Per the HN guidelines that is the preferable action:

> Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.

Of course I disagree with "egregious," did it need saying. After an insult like that, I promise you, no one in my bar would consider I had acted egregiously at all. But I admit it is a surprise to see you violate the site's discussion guidelines, in the very effort to enforce them.

Its fuzzier than that. Something can be detrimental and survive as long as its not too detrimental. Plus there is the evolving meta that moves the goal posts constantly. Then there's the billions of years of compute...

An easy counterargument is that - there are millions of species and an uncountable number of organisms on Earth, yet humans are the only known intelligent ones. (In fact high intelligence is the only trait humans have that no other organism has.) That could perhaps indicate that intelligence is a bit harder to "find" than you're claiming.

Negative mutations can survive for a long time if they're not too bad. For example the loss of vitamin C synthesis is clearly bad in situations where you have to survive without fresh food for a while, but that comes up so rarely that there was little selection pressure against it.

> if it was so easy

That’s one giant leap you got there.

That the probably that intelligent life exists in the universe is 1, says nothing about that ease, or otherwise, with which it came about.

By all scientific estimates, it took a very long time and faced a very many hurdles, and by all observational measures exists no where else.

Or, what did you mean by easy?

Agreed, and to that point, the way to produce such outputs is to absorb a large corpus of words and find the most likely prediction that mimics the written language. By virtue of the sheer amount of text it learns from, would you say that the output tends to find the average response based on the text provided? After all, "over fitting" is a well known concept that is avoided as a principle by ML researchers. What else could be the case?

I don't know anything (or even much) about how our brains function, but the idea of a neuron sending an electrical output when the sum of the strengths of its inputs exceeds some value seems to be me like "a bunch of weights" getting repeatedly updated by stimulus.

To you it might be obvious our brains are different from a network of weights being reconfigured as new information comes in; to me it's not so clear how they differ. And I do not feel I know the meaning of the word "know" clearly enough to establish whether something that can emit fluent text about a topic is somehow excluded from "knowing" about it through its means of construction.

Wait till you learn how human memory works.

Every time you recall a memory it is modified, every time you verbalise a memory it is modified even more so.

Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, people who witness the same events can have shockingly differing versions.

Memories are modified when new information, real or fabricated, is added.

It’s entirely possible to convince people to recall events that never occurred.

Which of your memories are you certain are of real occurrences, or memories of dreams?

i dont think this is a meaningful distinction.

it knows the past tokens because theyre part of the input for predicting the next token. its part of the model architecture that it knows it.

if that isnt knowing, people dont know how to walk, only how to move limbs, and not even that, just a bunch of neurons firing

But there is a very good chance that is what intelligence is.

Nobody knows what they are saying either, the brain is just (some form) of a neural net that produces output which we claim as our own. In fact most people go their entire life without noticing this. The words I am typing right now are just as mysterious to me as the words that pop on screen when an LLM is outputting.

I feel confident enough to disregard duelists (people who believe in brain magic), that it only leaves a neural net architecture as the explanation for intelligence, and the only two tools that that neural net can have is deterministic and random processes. The same ingredients that all software/hardware has to work with.

No.