They are remarkably useful. Of course there are dangers relating to how they are used, but sticking your head in the sand and pretending they are useless accomplishes nothing.
lightstream
joined 4 years ago
It models only use of language
This phrase, so casually deployed, is doing some seriously heavy lifting. Lanuage is by no means a trivial thing for a computer to meaningfully interpret, and the fact that LLMs do it so well is way more impressive than a casual observer might think.
If you look at earlier procedural attempts to interpret language programmatically, you will see that time and again, the developers get stopped in their tracks because in order to understand a sentence, you need to understand the universe - or at the least a particular corner of it. For example, given the sentence "The stolen painting was found by a tree", you need to know what a tree is in order to interpret this correctly.
You can't really use language *unless* you have a model of the universe.
Heroic works really well. I've just installed it myself recently, motivated mostly by a desire to finally play the free games I got off Epic. I've only installed two EGS games so far - Civ 6 and Guardians of the Galaxy - but they're working perfectly, running via proton.
The experience is so good I was actually inspired to buy my first game outside of steam in years, namely Wartales which I just bought yesterday on GOG. Installation is a breeze, it runs under proton, and as far as I can tell it is running perfectly.
I sort of prefer Heroic to Steam in fact, because it starts almost immediately - no waiting around for 30 seconds while it tries to connect to the Steam network etc
That’s 1 in every 50 desktops. Anecdotally I can think of only 3 people, including myself
Can you name 147 people using Windows? If you can, then that's 1 in every 50. Of course, people you know are probably the technical sort that are more likely to pay attention to their OS, but still you'd need to be able to individually name 147 Windows users just to match the 1 in 50 stat. Point I'm trying to make is that one in 50 really is not very many!
they, in fact, will have some understanding
These models have spontaneously acquired a concept of things like perspective, scale and lighting, which you can argue is already an understanding of 3D space.
What they do not have (and IMO won't ever have) is consciousness. The fact we have created machines that have understanding of the universe without consciousness is very interesting to me. It's very illuminating on the subject of what consciousness is, by providing a new example of what it is not.
They absolutely do contain a model of the universe which their answers must conform to. When an LLM hallucinates, it is creating a new answer which fits its internal model.
I don't have Subnautica but it is on my wishlist because you can play in VR, which is what I mostly play these days. PCVR is not as reliable on Linux as standard games, but nevertheless more than 50% of titles do work flawlessly now. Subnautica is definitely one of them - you should check for other people who've got your problem on ProtonDB. If you actually care, look into it more, you should be able to get all of those games running.
Hmmm? You can run Subnautica on Linux through Steam, as you can run most games written for Windows.
They had a veto and they also had the Tories
I think it's possible that internal language did exist before it could be vocalised. That is, before we evolved the necessary structures in the throat to make words, we were thinking according to basic grammatical rules e.g subject-verb-object. Words in human language are like labels for internal concepts, and those internal concepts would have existed before language was a thing.
What do you think evolved first - verbal communication or thoughts? Presumably we were able to think before we could speak, no? The words we have in our language are like pointers to internal concepts, and it seems to me that those internal concepts would have existed before language was a thing. The mouth-sounds as you put it are not the thoughts themselves, rather just labels for specific concepts. It might be possible and even convenient to think in mouth-sounds but it's not necessary for logical thought.
You're not being naive, the comment was joking about the meme incorrectly using "starring" (the gerund of "to star" as in "Cillian Murphy is starring in this movie") when the meme creator clearly meant to use "staring", the gerund of "to stare".