You assume the goal is to dominate the EV market. It seems pretty clear that this hasn't been Teslas revealed preference for a long time. The goal is to keep raising the stock price. If that involved selling fewer EVs Elon would do it. He turned Teslas humble beginnings as an EV company into just the first stage in $TSLAs booster rocket to the moon, one that it already separated from.
The stateless/timeless nature of LLMs comes from the rigid prompt-response structure. But I don't see why we cant in theory decouple the response from the prompt, and have them constantly produce a response stream from a prompt that can be adjusted asynchronously by the environment and by the LLMs themselves through the response tokens and actions therein. I think that would certainly simulate them experiencing time without the hairy questions about what time is.
It is not about stateless nature of LLMs. The problem of time-series A versus B is that our mathematical constructions just cannot describe the perception of time flow or at least for over 100 years nobody managed to figure out how to express it mathematically. As such any algorithms including LLMs remains just a static collection of rules for a Turing machine. All the things that consciousness perceives as changes including state transitions or prompt responses in computers are not expressible standalone without references to the consciousness experience.
All of us trained our human "LLM" in the same environment (a human baby body) so it's easy for us to agree. I think once we have LLM-like entities that are always on and output a constant stream of thoughts, lines are going to get real blurry. Things that always used to be coupled and so had one name might need to be split. I think consciousness is one of those. Consciousness does not have a single definition as far as I am aware but one definition is something like the feeling of a potential future I am passively predicting happening and becoming the past. Riding that "now" wave. This definition seems extremely substrate specific. What if this sensation is just an implementation detail of an evolved intelligence in an Earth animal? The feeling of information being processed. I suspect this is just what consciousness feels like, not what it is. I don't know what you're feeling but from observing and interacting with you I assume and act like you are conscious. You are "functionally conscious." I don't see why AIs couldn't be functionally conscious. I further assume that you are human and so I extend even more consideration to how I talk to you. I assume you have feelings that you like to feel and those you don't and I prefer to trigger the former and avoid the latter, not simply because I don't want to take the conversation there but because as a fellow animal I care about your feelings. But I can see how there could be entities in the future that are conscious "functionally" but do not have the accompanying human feelings. They would speak human, since thats useful to humans, but wouldn't "be" human. I don't think we need to understand how / why humans feel conscious for that to happen.
This is a critique of basketed index funds not total stock market index funds like FSKAX. When that observation is applied to FSKAX it reads like this
"An index fund, by its nature, must occasionally dump stock I like and buy stock I don't like simply because the entire stock market dumped the stock I like and bought the stock I don't like."
Math is a purely logical tool. None of it "exists." That makes no sense. Some of it can be used to model reality. We call such math "physics." And I think physics is significantly closer to math than to reality. It's just a collection of math that models some measurements on some scales with some precision. We have no idea how close we are to actual reality.
I do not understand the framing of "translating math concepts directly into reality." It's backwards. You must have first chosen some math to model reality. If you get "bad" numbers it has nothing to do with translating math to reality. It has to do with how you translated reality into math.
I think maybe I didn’t really explain myself properly. I didn’t mean that math is real in the sense that atoms are real. Perhaps “true” would be a better word. We know these things are true to us, but are they universally true? If that’s even a thing? Hope that makes more sense.
Mathematics is a philosophy that focuses on the study of logic. It's a bit of an exaggeration to conflate mathematics with 'truth' in an absolute, universal sense.
Mathematical 'truths' are themselves only true in the sense that they can be derived from axioms.
The fact that mathematics can be used to understand the world around us is nothing short of a mystery (or a miracle).
That's a great piece of marketing straight out of Apple's Big Number Book of Important Numbers, but _who the fuck cares_ ?
Aside from a tiny amount of nerds needing post hoc rationalisation as to why they blew $1500 on a gimmick, absolutely nobody will go looking for a phone and consider grams/mm² as an important measure.
This is naive. The problem is that there are enough people with enough power who want house prices to keep going up. The solution must involve making them upset that they cannot get their way. Anything that doesn't have this shape is a stalling tactic in their favor.
I bet that when this tech is in normal cars some will have it tuned to drive much more aggressively and/or simply have that be a setting. I suspect that would be a big selling point / driving tacitly would be an anti-selling point.
Nah, insurance companies will change their coverage rates based on the feature, and / or it'll become another legally mandated feature like backup cameras.
On the other hand, I wonder why insurance companies haven't led to the ubiquity of dashcams. I thought by now every vehicle sold would have one built in.
And my suspicion is that insurance companies don't push for you to get one because it prevents them from fighting claims that they would've won had there been no evidence.
Maybe it's similar for self-driving or whatever we're talking about here (sensors?).
They don’t care because at their scale it would be a wash - you’d only come out ahead if your insured drivers were consistently and significantly better drivers than every other insurance provider you fight claims against.
Then why not offer a "dash-cam discount" to the subset of customers that the insurer believes _are_ better drivers, like those with a long history of having no accidents or tickets and tons of miles?
In the first years maybe. However governments are watching this data and will make it mandatory on when they decide it is really better. (Assuming it is better in unbiased study) There are many governments, it only takes one and the car makers will be looking at if the override button is worth having.
reply