Recent content by javisot

Newton's laws are not general, given that Newton was a man of the 17th century with virtually no technology at his disposal. He did not explore or observe beyond the limits imposed by the technology available to him. He formulated laws that he considered universal because they could be verified...

Working with an interpretation that includes an arrow of time is more intuitive for us, given that we are accustomed to the concept of an arrow of time. So, what is the downside of BM? Non-locality.

It is an interpretation. "Never" and "always" are very big concepts.

In the mesoscopic and macroscopic regimes, there appears to be a general arrow of time, but I do not know whether such an arrow exists in the microscopic regime, nor whether its existence is necessary to explain the results. As far as entanglement is concerned, the requirement is that the...

QM does not require that every instance of entanglement must have been created through an interaction between the two particles. It merely requires that, if they are entangled, their joint state is non-factorizable.

I simply want to highlight this valuable observation. That "jargon" is ultimately machine language. A language that can be operated on like a universal Turing machine via algorithms.

Spanish(input) → tokenization → vector representation → repeated mathematical transformation → detokenization → Spanish(output) There is no magic in the process

Oops, sorry, planobilly said it

There was some satire (but not much), because I had just read Roberto saying that the model acts as if it were "alive," you have to lower your standards a lot to see it that way. And also because of what you mentioned, of course.

You're forgetting one point about hallucinations; they're not predictable. It's easy to predict that current models (you can check it with chatgpt for example) answer "4" to the question "2+2=?", there is clear traceability between input and output. But a hallucination is not predictable. If we...

When we say that AI is at this moment more than the sum of its parts, we do so because of hallucinations.

We could say of that child "when he comes of age he is no longer the responsibility of his parents", ok, but AI/AGI is not a child.

An example, no judge blames a non-defective knife for a murder, obviously. (Strictly speaking, the knife kills you, but the knife isn't responsible) Imagine a knife with a will of its own that decides to kill you. Who on earth created that knife with a will of its own and couldn't control it...

In Korea, yes

I agree with the point that the problem is humans, not AI. Even if we manage to create an autonomous AI that destroys us, who on earth created it and failed (or refused) to contain it? The law should be: "You can create an AI more intelligent than humans capable of destroying the Earth, but if...