Not even that. It was placeholder textures, only the “newspaper clippings” of which was forgotten to be removed from the final game and was fixed in an update shortly after launch.

None of it was ever intended to be used in the final product and was just there as lorum ipsum equivalent shit.

He’s been wrong about it so far and really derailed Meta’s efforts.

This is almost certainly a “you can resign or we are going to fire you” kind of situation. There’s no way with the setbacks and how badly he’s been wrong on transformers over the past 2 years that he is not finally being pushed out.

I’m a proponent and I definitely don’t think it’s impossible to make a probable case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And there are implications around it being the case which do change up how we might approach truth seeking.

Also, if you exist in a dream but don’t exist outside of it, there’s pretty significant philosophical stakes in the nature and scope of the dream. We’ve been too brainwashed by Plato’s influence and the idea that “original = good” and “copy = bad.”

There’s a lot of things that can only exist by way of copies that can’t exist for the original (i.e. closure recursion), so it’s a weird remnant philosophical obsession.

All that said, I do get that it’s a fairly uncomfortable notion for a lot of people.

Yes, just like Minecraft worlds are so antiquated given how they contain diamonds in deep layers that must have taken a billion years to form.

What a simulated world contains as its local timescale doesn’t mean the actual non-local run time is the same.

It’s quite possible to create a world that appears to be billions of years old but only booted up seconds ago.

Have you bothered looking for evidence?

What makes you so sure that there’s no evidence for it?

For example, a common trope we see in the simulated worlds we create are Easter eggs. Are you sure nothing like that exists in our own universe?

I tend to see a lot of discussion taking place on here that’s pretty out of touch with the present state of things, echoing earlier beliefs about LLM limitations like “they only predict the next token” and other things that have already been falsified.

This most recent research from Anthropic confirms a lot of things that have been shifting in the most recent generation of models in ways that many here might find unexpected, especially given the popular assumptions.

Specifically interesting are the emergent capabilities of being self-aware of injected control vectors or being able to silently think of a concept so it triggers the appropriate feature vectors even though it isn’t actually ending up in the tokens.

A great case for why data normalization is so important.

Looking at the chart like this with non-normalized data you might conclude that riding around on a scooter makes you near invincible compared to walking even if hit by a car.

Whereas what’s really being shown is more people walk than ride scooters.

Are you under the impression that language models are just guessing “what letter comes next in this sequence of letters”?

There’s a very significant difference between training on completion and the way the world model actually functions once established.

It very much isn’t and that’s extremely technically wrong on many, many levels.

Yet still one of the higher up voted comments here.

Which says a lot.

Even if the AI could spit it out verbatim, all the major labs already have IP checkers on their text models that block it doing so as fair use for training (what was decided here) does not mean you are free to reproduce.

Like, if you want to be an artist and trace Mario in class as you learn, that’s fair use.

If once you are working as an artist someone says “draw me a sexy image of Mario in a calendar shoot” you’d be violating Nintendo’s IP rights and liable for infringement.

I’d encourage everyone upset at this read over some of the EFF posts from actual IP lawyers on this topic like this one:

Nor is pro-monopoly regulation through copyright likely to provide any meaningful economic support for vulnerable artists and creators. Notwithstanding the highly publicized demands of musicians, authors, actors, and other creative professionals, imposing a licensing requirement is unlikely to protect the jobs or incomes of the underpaid working artists that media and entertainment behemoths have exploited for decades. Because of the imbalance in bargaining power between creators and publishing gatekeepers, trying to help creators by giving them new rights under copyright law is, as EFF Special Advisor Cory Doctorow has written, like trying to help a bullied kid by giving them more lunch money for the bully to take.

Entertainment companies’ historical practices bear out this concern. For example, in the late-2000’s to mid-2010’s, music publishers and recording companies struck multimillion-dollar direct licensing deals with music streaming companies and video sharing platforms. Google reportedly paid more than $400 million to a single music label, and Spotify gave the major record labels a combined 18 percent ownership interest in its now-$100 billion company. Yet music labels and publishers frequently fail to share these payments with artists, and artists rarely benefit from these equity arrangements. There is no reason to believe that the same companies will treat their artists more fairly once they control AI.

If you read the fine print, they keep your sample data for 2 years after deletion.

So maybe they actually delete your email address, but the DNA data itself is still definitely there.

Wow. Reading these comments so many people here really don’t understand how LLMs work or what’s actually going on at the frontier of the field.

I feel like there’s going to be a cultural sonic boom, where when the shockwave finally catches up people are going to be woefully under prepared based on what they think they saw.

No matter what you call it, an LLM will always produces the same output with the same input if it is at the same state.

You might want to look up the definition of ‘stochastic.’

This is why Hell is such a stupid concept.

There’s a literal “moral privilege” in that it’s much, much easier to live life in a good way depending on physical structures in your brain.

You’d be surprised at the rates of TBI in incarcerated violent criminals.

Turns out damaging people’s impulse control pathways leads to crime!

Just yesterday I was walking past an old person on the sidewalk and had an intrusive thought about pushing them out into the street, followed by a thought of “man I’m really grateful that I have a functioning impulse control - it must be hell to go through life where thoughts like that could turn into terrible consequences because there’s no mechanism catching errant impulses”).

While this guy should definitely not be out in public where he’d likely continue to harm people, I think we generally underappreciated just how little separates all of us from behaving just like him, and overestimate how much of his behavior is because of choice as opposed to circumstance.

We shouldn’t try to be so punitive with criminal justice. A functioning society does need to keep violent people separated from potential victims, but we really don’t need to be such dicks about it.